Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?

Quote :

People don't run grav cannons in tactical squads because they don't have the luxury of knowing whether it will be a worthwhile investment of a 35 point upgrade and because there are better platforms to put grav on.

Which is interesting as the same goes for Kabalites and their "precious" poison against imperial guard or vehicle heavy armies.

Also I really don't like these comparisons in a nutshell. 9 Kabalites are never ever coming close enough to do anything (and the difference at 24" is basically nothing) so they need a suitable vehicle. In that case a Raider which buys the other side a Razorback.
Also Chapter Tactics and Tactical Doktrines did not come into consideration (Ultamarines would basically get twin linked).

Last but not least, the same points buy you 7 Scouts with Sniper Rifles which should do a lot better from 24" or further while having better stats, chapter tactics and ATSKNF.

On a interesting side note:
A Landspeeder Storm with 5 scouts and Assault cannon is only 5 points more than a Venom full of kabalite warriors while also getting a large Blast, Scout, Infiltrate, chapter tactics, Atsknf, better stats, a weapon that can hurt vehicles and a jamming beacon.

I guess at this point there is no reason to argue which one is better overall.

Saying that our warriors are good by the standard of troops is exactly what I've been saying this whole time. I'm not saying they should be the entirety of your army or that they're this phenomenal unit everyone should try to max out, but they're one of the best troop choices out there and well worth their small cost.

I wasn't looking for you to specify an ideal loadout that nobody uses for one particular matchup, I was looking for you to say "I'd rather have Space Marines" or "I'd rather have Fire Warriors" or "Necron Warriors", because as I've been saying since the beginning, our damage is better than theirs so you guys complaining that our troops suck don't know how good we have it.

I'm sure there are players who have used tacticals with grav cannons, as have I faced Eldar players who use Wraithlords, but you dismissed them readily enough. Isn't that a double standard to set?

Space Marines do sometimes use combi weapons on the sergeants as well, probably about half of the time, but the Dark Eldar warriors still come out ahead in those comparions. I can show you that math as well if you'd prefer. It adds more to their cost and they still fall behind on damage. How do you think they feel about that?

18 warriors in rapid fire range of a riptide averages 2 wounds per turn btw.

I won't argue that we're behind a lot of other armies in competitiveness, but it's not our troop choices that are holding us back. Would I love to see them get more options like a haywire blaster? Sure. I'd also love if venoms could get dark lances and to have formations anywhere near as powerful as our Eldar cousins. I responded to someone saying warrior damage is pathetic, but for their cost I think they're very competitive. If ours is pathetic, then what does that say about other troop choices? I don't think the game is balanced around troops being superkilly, but at least ours do a reasonable job of it for the minuscule cost.

Sorry, meant 9 Warriors (18 shots).

In any case, let me put it another way: You're saying our troops are better, but this is only the case because you're choosing deliberately favourable matchups.

Shall we compare Marines with a combi-melta and meltagun to 9 warriors with a blaster against the front of a chimera? Or against another vehicle? You know, the sort of thing marines with meltaguns might actually be used against.


Troops going up against a MC or GC should be a last-resort, not a first-resort. Once again, the fact that our army is so pathetic in terms of alternate ways to fight those things is not a point in the warriors' favour.

I listed a good 20 units that we do better against and I could list more if needed. I didn't cherry pick obscure matchups either. I listed units commonly fielded in the more competitive armies.

Yes, I also acknowledge that there are other targets we will not do as well against (including vehicles), but slap a haywire grenade and blaster in a unit of 5 and that's a chance for 3 hull points off the chimera right there and it still costs less than the marines with 2 meltas.

If any one unit had higher damage output than every other unit in the game then that would be a balance issue. Consider ours cost 6 less per model and I'm impressed there are any models we do better damage against, let alone the list of tough units I described.

Quote :

our damage is better than theirs so you guys complaining that our troops suck don't know how good we have it.

In ONE SPECIFIC situation.

I ran the numbers for one specific situation, but I listed quite a few where our damage is higher.  Here's another example if you like, crack open the Necron codex and look through the unit lists.  Here's what I see.

Number of units Dark Eldar Warriors do more damage against than Space Marines: 19
Number of units Dark Eldar Warriors do the same damage against as Space Marines: 6
Number of units Dark Eldar Warriors do less damage against than Space Marines: 1

So unless you really think it's worth doing more damage against Scarabs than it is against all the other units in the codex, then I think I'll stick with my less expensive warriors.  Just because I ran the numbers against only one unit doesn't mean they only hold for one unit.  Yes, we could include special weapons again, but I already showed that special weapons in the unit do not close the damage as much as you guys seem to believe while they do add significantly to the cost of the unit.

lessthanjeff wrote:

I ran the numbers for one specific situation, but I listed quite a few where our damage is higher.  Here's another example if you like, crack open the Necron codex and look through the unit lists.  Here's what I see.

Number of units Dark Eldar Warriors do more damage against than Space Marines: 19
Number of units Dark Eldar Warriors do the same damage against as Space Marines: 6
Number of units Dark Eldar Warriors do less damage against than Space Marines: 1

So unless you really think it's worth doing more damage against Scarabs than it is against all the other units in the codex, then I think I'll stick with my less expensive warriors.  Just because I ran the numbers against only one unit doesn't mean they only hold for one unit.  Yes, we could include special weapons again, but I already showed that special weapons in the unit do not close the damage as much as you guys seem to believe while they do add significantly to the cost of the unit.

How on earth are you getting those numbers? Are there no vehicles in the Necron codex?

The vehicles are all armor value 11, so bolter or splinter weapon we're in the same boat.

Krak grenades?

Not that it matters much, but even at naked troop levels, you're entirely ignoring krak grenades.  A naked 55 point scout squad can make up to 6 krak grenade attacks against monstrous creatures between thrown and melee, and they've got better AP.  O ya, they are also pretty good at killing those moving metal boxes; I think they're called "vehicles".

Hard to remember really with all these toughness 6+ monstrous creatures we seem to see in every game.  

I truly struggle to understand how anyone argues kabalites are superior to scouts (or most other troop types for that matter).  I picked marine scouts in particular though because they can play a similar 5 man skimmer MSU, which works out to exactly the same point cost as kabalites/venom.  They also have more options for delivering poison than kabalites, with 36" poison 4+ sniper rifles and 24" poison 2+ blasts.

I wish it were the case that kabalites were useful outside of just being a way to get more venoms on the table and go to ground on objectives.  Sorry, They just aren't.

Edit: wow count, sharing a brain for a moment - mine appears a bit more long-winded though. At least I beat Charondyr by a minute!

Quote :

The vehicles are all armor value 11, so bolter or splinter weapon we're in the same boat.

All Marines come with krak grenades.

stilgar27 wrote:

Not that it matters much, but even at naked troop levels, you're entirely ignoring krak grenades.  A naked 55 point scout squad can make up to 6 krak grenade attacks against monstrous creatures between thrown and melee, and they've got better AP.  O ya, they are also pretty good at killing those moving metal boxes; I think they're called "vehicles".

Hard to remember really with all these toughness 6+ monstrous creatures we seem to see in every game.  

I truly struggle to understand how anyone argues kabalites are superior to scouts (or most other troop types for that matter).  I picked marine scouts in particular though because they can play a similar 5 man skimmer MSU, which works out to exactly the same point cost as kabalites/venom.  They also have more options for delivering poison than kabalites, with 36" poison 4+ sniper rifles and 24" poison 2+ blasts.

I wish it were the case that kabalites were useful outside of just being a way to get more venoms on the table and go to ground on objectives.  Sorry, They just aren't.

I was looking more at shooting, but Krak grenades are a fair point. I don't think they'll work in shooting since necron vehicles have shielding but in assault those will prove handy. That adds 5 more units to Space Marines by my count so 6 total for them.

Not all of the units I'm citing are monstrous creatures though so you can't duplicate the effects of those against all the targets. Most of the ones I listed are more in the vein of bikes and centurions where the krak grenades won't swing the numbers.

I ran numbers myself the other day comparing troop units from all codexes shooting vs 3 different types of targets (MEQ, GEQ and MC). I assumed 12" range and the target being in 5+ cover. Kabalite were absolute rock bottom, last vs MEQ, middle of the road against GEQ and best against MCs. That doesn't take into account their fragility, lack of (decent) options for customisation, complete helplessness vs vehicles, inability to engage in melee etc. I therefore really struggle to see how anyone can class them as being the best troop unit in the game!

Count Adhemar wrote:

I ran numbers myself the other day comparing troop units from all codexes shooting vs 3 different types of targets (MEQ, GEQ and MC). I assumed 12" range and the target being in 5+ cover. Kabalite were absolute rock bottom, last vs MEQ, middle of the road against GEQ and best against MCs. That doesn't take into account their fragility, lack of (decent) options for customisation, complete helplessness vs vehicles, inability to engage in melee etc. I therefore really struggle to see how anyone can class them as being the best troop unit in the game!

I think this comparison might be a little disingenuous, but I may not understand how you are ranking them.

Did you compare equivalent points of models or equivalent number of models?

I consider dedicated transports part of the troop because I think most troops are kinda bad without the ability to get anywhere efficiently. This really helps tacticals be useful because razorbacks are pretty decent, but our troops really rely on their transports.

How are they last vs MEQ they wound MEQ with the same frequency as any body armed with S4 weapons with ap4 or worse. So they kill marines just as well as other marines will, but cost considerably less. They don't would T3 enemies as often, but T3 is pretty rare compared to T4 or even T5 in a lot of metas.

They are fragile, but less so than many because of gaining FnP as the game goes on. Also with the amount of ap3 or better in the game anymore marines pay for armor that is frequently ignored and end up relying on cover just like my warriors.

Not being able to hurt tanks is pretty sucky though. Bolters are mostly pointless against them, but the S6 krak grenades are amazing.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I ran numbers myself the other day comparing troop units from all codexes shooting vs 3 different types of targets (MEQ, GEQ and MC). I assumed 12" range and the target being in 5+ cover. Kabalite were absolute rock bottom, last vs MEQ, middle of the road against GEQ and best against MCs. That doesn't take into account their fragility, lack of (decent) options for customisation, complete helplessness vs vehicles, inability to engage in melee etc. I therefore really struggle to see how anyone can class them as being the best troop unit in the game!

I think I'd want to see a little more info on how you ran these comparisons and against what units. My logic tends to run like this.
Is it T3? Then Dark Eldar will come in behind.
Is it T4? Then Dark Eldar will come in equal to their peers but their cost makes them preferable.
Is it T5+? Then Dark Eldar will come out ahead and cost less.

I'm generally comparing against units like Space Marines, Necron Warriors, and Tau Fire Warriors as those are often cited as desirable troop choices. Comparisons could be made to orks and imperial guard as well, but I'm pretty sure their numbers are even lower than the troop choices I listed.

lessthanjeff wrote:

I think I'd want to see a little more info on how you ran these comparisons and against what units.  My logic tends to run like this.
Is it T3? Then Dark Eldar will come in behind.
Is it T4? Then Dark Eldar will come in equal to their peers but their cost makes them preferable.
Is it T5+? Then Dark Eldar will come out ahead and cost less.

That seems like a really dubious way to go about it.

- You're already massaging the numbers by refusing to include Grav. Yes, many marine players don't take it, but perhaps that should tell you something. I mean, look at it this way - Tactical Marines have access to a weapon that lets them outclass Warriors against virtually every target in the game - including many of the most problematic units (e.g. Wraithknights). And they don't use it. That should tell you something about marines.
- You're seemingly not including vehicles (which DE warriors are abysmal against).
- You don't seem to be including the special rules of other races (e.g. Bladestorm is vastly better than Poison in most cases)
- Even if we leave aside Grav, I'm really dubious that you're taking special weapons into account. e.g. Grey Hunters can take 2 plasmaguns, IG veterans can take 3... are you sure Warriors are beating both of those against units with 2+ saves?
- You're not taking into account other rules, bonuses, survivability etc. e.g. you say DE are better than their peers against T4 because they're cheaper, but this completely ignores that other units have vastly superior survivability.
- Finally, you're ignoring whether warriors being better than other troops against these units (assuming they even are better), is actually useful. e.g. Let's say Marines with a plasmagun average 0.3 wounds on a WK, and 5 Warriors with a blaster average 0.45. Yes, the Warriors are a little less inept, but they're still not good. Either way, you'd be better off looking outside of the troop section for an answer (e.g. Grav Centurions for Marines and.. nothing for us). To put it another way, you still have to take practicality into account.

When you're having to show this much bias towards Warriors, it really doesn't serve your point.

The Shredder wrote:

lessthanjeff wrote:

I think I'd want to see a little more info on how you ran these comparisons and against what units.  My logic tends to run like this.
Is it T3? Then Dark Eldar will come in behind.
Is it T4? Then Dark Eldar will come in equal to their peers but their cost makes them preferable.
Is it T5+? Then Dark Eldar will come out ahead and cost less.

That seems like a really dubious way to go about it.

- You're already massaging the numbers by refusing to include Grav. Yes, many marine players don't take it, but perhaps that should tell you something. I mean, look at it this way - Tactical Marines have access to a weapon that lets them outclass Warriors against virtually every target in the game - including many of the most problematic units (e.g. Wraithknights). And they don't use it. That should tell you something about marines.
- You're seemingly not including vehicles (which DE warriors are abysmal against).
- You don't seem to be including the special rules of other races (e.g. Bladestorm is vastly better than Poison in most cases)
- Even if we leave aside Grav, I'm really dubious that you're taking special weapons into account. e.g. Grey Hunters can take 2 plasmaguns, IG veterans can take 3... are you sure Warriors are beating both of those against units with 2+ saves?
- You're not taking into account other rules, bonuses, survivability etc. e.g. you say DE are better than their peers against T4 because they're cheaper, but this completely ignores that other units have vastly superior survivability.
- Finally, you're ignoring whether warriors being better than other troops against these units (assuming they even are better), is actually useful. e.g. Let's say Marines with a plasmagun average 0.3 wounds on a WK, and 5 Warriors with a blaster average 0.45. Yes, the Warriors are a little less inept, but they're still not good. Either way, you'd be better off looking outside of the troop section for an answer (e.g. Grav Centurions for Marines and.. nothing for us). To put it another way, you still have to take practicality into account.

When you're having to show this much bias towards Warriors, it really doesn't serve your point.

I'm not refusing to include grav, I'm using the data for the standard equipment load of a tactical squad.  It's not a common loadout just like I wouldn't try to run numbers for Dark Eldar warriors against other units using shredders because nobody uses them.

Yes, warriors are worse against vehicles, and as I've said before I personally prefer to have units dedicated to specific jobs.  I don't want my warriors going against vehicles, I want them going against toughness values.  For my antivehicle units, I bring different tools and I don't want them firing into infantry by the same logic.  It's generally an inefficient way to use units.  If you really want to make them anti tank though, give them a blaster and haywire grenade.  They can take 3 hullpoints off a vehicle in one turn that way and still come out cheaper than many troop choices.

Bladestorm is a very solid rule in many cases.  I asked you if you thought any other troop choice was the superior option before and if you'd rather we compare numbers for them we can.  It gets a bit more complicated since you have to start deciding what kind of equipment the enemy has and whether they'll have cover or not but it's doable. Offhand, I'd expect the warriors to still come out ahead on units that can jink or have solid invul saves like TWC and Wraiths while the Guardians would do better against targets like centurions.

And no, I was not taking special weapons into account because I already showed you in one example that if you add a melta or plasma gun (and an additional combi for the champion) and give the warriors blasters that the warrior damage is still higher.  Adding special weapons is fine but it introduces a lot of other variables that affect strengths and weaknesses against different targets.  They'll gain ground against some and lose ground against others.

The best survivability to me is having more models spread across more units.  Many units that drop in and kill a dark eldar warrior squad do just as much damage against 5 marines.  Having 2 warrior squads, however, means if one dies you still have the second one left alive.

Do I expect my 5 man warrior squad to singlehandedly kill the targets I mentioned? No.  But it sure is nice that they can contribute a wound or two against that riptide or wraith unit to help finish it off.  That they do so with better odds than the tacticals and cost significantly less is icing on the cake.

I enjoy kabalites quite a lot. I usually run 5 naked in a duel cannon venom. They basically play clean up crew, take objectives, block enemy units or supply cover for my other forces etc. I give them jobs that they can achieve well and don't waste them doing something they probably aren't very good at. I used to take blasters with them, but after a ton of games I started to see that blasters don't make much of a difference when on Kabalites. I would rather keep them cheaper and have them feel less threatening to my opponent.

Quote :

Yes, warriors are worse against vehicles, and as I've said before I personally prefer to have units dedicated to specific jobs.  I don't want my warriors going against vehicles, I want them going against toughness values.  For my antivehicle units, I bring different tools and I don't want them firing into infantry by the same logic.

But for some strange reason you refuse to accept that other races do the same. Also you still ignore scouts and chapter tactics/doctrines.

Survivability also is a big deal. Just saying

Quote :

Many units that drop in and kill a dark eldar warrior squad do just as much damage against 5 marines.

is far away from truth. There are a whole lot of (assault) units that get stuck in 5 marines and just obliterate warriors (remember, DE have a good chance to just run away) and even more ranged units that have a hard time against T4 and 3+ but no issue against T3 and 5+

Quote :

I enjoy kabalites quite a lot. I usually run 5 naked in a duel cannon venom.

You do not enjoy Kabalites, you enjoy Venoms. Kabalites are the tax that allow you to bring more venoms. And because you want to pay low taxes, you keep your Kabalites cheap (naked).
If it were the other way round you would keep the venom cheap (no Cannon) and try to sneak in more kabalites.

We have 2 troop choices.Take the minimum 2 of whichever one you want, and take other units to satisfy the rest of your armies desires. Or, you can always play another army. Or you can do what I do and play homebrew rules.

I like my Warriors, for a lot of the reasons listed above.

They're not overly expensive. They have a transport which adds to their utility a lot (I'll generally take 3-5 Venoms with five Warriors and a Blaster).

Between FnP, Fearless on the last couple to few turns, obj sec transports, being able to threaten different unit types with poison / Blaster makes them good IMO.

I tend to play objective heavy games, though.

Having looked at my numbers again it would appear that I made a booboo on the Kabalites by not taking into account rapid fire. This does bump their numbers up but they're still pretty far from being the amazing unit that some people believe them to be.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Yes, warriors are worse against vehicles, and as I've said before I personally prefer to have units dedicated to specific jobs.  I don't want my warriors going against vehicles, I want them going against toughness values.

But that's the thing - you're then using that as the benchmark for other troops.

Even though, for example, SMs will almost certainly use those melta/combi-melta tacs to target a vehicle, whilst their Grav Centurions take down the Riptide.

If you're doing a fair comparison of troops, you have to include the things that Warriors do worse against - including vehicles. Especially since 'I don't want my warriors attacking X' could just as easil be because Warriors are crap against X.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Yes, warriors are worse against vehicles, and as I've said before I personally prefer to have units dedicated to specific jobs.  I don't want my warriors going against vehicles, I want them going against toughness values.

But that's the thing - you're then using that as the benchmark for other troops.

Even though, for example, SMs will almost certainly use those melta/combi-melta tacs to target a vehicle, whilst their Grav Centurions take down the Riptide.

If you're doing a fair comparison of troops, you have to include the things that Warriors do worse against - including vehicles. Especially since 'I don't want my warriors attacking X' could just as easil be because Warriors are crap against X.

Moreover, I don't care whether or not most people take Grav on Tactical marines or not. You're still placing arbitrary limitations on a squad where none actually exist. Furthermore, you're also assuming a different role (MC-hunting) to the role most people actually use tactical marines for. If you do that, then you should also assume appropriate weapons. If you want to go down that route, fine - let's compare a marine squad with a meltagun and meltabombs to 10 warriors with a splinter cannon against a rhino.

lessthanjeff wrote:

And no, I was not taking special weapons into account because I already showed you in one example that if you add a melta or plasma gun (and an additional combi for the champion) and give the warriors blasters that the warrior damage is still higher.  Adding special weapons is fine but it introduces a lot of other variables that affect strengths and weaknesses against different targets.  They'll gain ground against some and lose ground against others.

First off, I'd check your math. I seriously doubt that Warriors with a blaster will get more wounds against Centurions than Grey Hunters with 2 plasmaguns.

And, you can't ignore special weapons when they're often the entire point of a squad.

lessthanjeff wrote:

The best survivability to me is having more models spread across more units.

My Necrons would disagree.

The Shredder wrote:

lessthanjeff wrote:

Yes, warriors are worse against vehicles, and as I've said before I personally prefer to have units dedicated to specific jobs.  I don't want my warriors going against vehicles, I want them going against toughness values.

But that's the thing - you're then using that as the benchmark for other troops.

Even though, for example, SMs will almost certainly use those melta/combi-melta tacs to target a vehicle, whilst their Grav Centurions take down the Riptide.

If you're doing a fair comparison of troops, you have to include the things that Warriors do worse against - including vehicles. Especially since 'I don't want my warriors attacking X' could just as easil be because Warriors are crap against X.

Table top experience has taught me that I don't want to rely on tacticals or warrior to take out vehicles. The meltagun is ok, but has to be so close to use that it's near worthless unless you have them come in via drop pod. Really it's the krak grenades that are the threat. Discounting formation bonuses the best troop choice for SM are scouts which are better than warriors, even though they cost a little more.

The grav cannon vs WK example is extreme, but since it was brought up I will give my opinion. I can field two squads of warriors with blaster for the cost of one squad of marines with a grav cannon. The marines will do better against a WK, but neither are going to kill it, and the warriors will hold it up for two turns, while the marines will only hold it for one. Also while the grav cannon is the most mobile heavy weapon tacs can get, it's hardly effective when moving. Having two squads of warriors is also nice in the more objective driven meta.

We do suffer from a lack of options for special and heavy weapons, which sucks, but at the same time you generally see tac marines armed with a plasma gun or a melta gun depending on their transport. So most of the options collect dust in the bits box.

I don't really think any one is saying that warriors are "Amazing!", which is what the naysayers are implying. We are saying that they are a solid choice for troops. This alone makes them better than many other troop choices. Their standard equipment is effective against anything with a toughness value, which is something a lot when I end up missing when I play marines or harlequins. I almost never take more than two units, but when I take them I don't feel like I'm paying a tax. When I build an SM list the tacticals feel like a waste.