Venom Spam vs MEQ?

lessthanjeff wrote:

The comment I'm responding to said we're not a good shooty army and that our weapons should be cheaper...

Well, the comment I'm responding to is Thor's example and the Count's statement that 'point for point' only the Tau provide more firepower than us. I said no, look at eldar guardians. Thor countered that v. a Wraithknight, we still beat them, and I'm saying that no, we do not.

Here are some other examples against things that we are supposedly better than guardians at:

Killing a Wraithknight: Kabalite Warriors - 54 shots; Eldar Guardians - 54 shots

Killing a Riptide: Kabalite Warriors - 90 shots; Eldar Guardians - 45 shots

Killing a Demond Prince: Kabalite Warriors - 18 shots; Eldar Guardians - 27 shots (yay!)

Killing a Tervigon: Kabalite Warriors - 54 shots; Eldar Guardians - 54 shots

Killing 3 Space Meringues on Bikes: Kabalite Warriors - 27 shots; Eldar Guardians - 20 shots

Killing Abbasong the Spoiler: Kabalite Warriors - 72 shots; Eldar Guardians - 54 shots

Of course you could argue that the guardians only have a range of 12" and the kabalites can do it from 24" away; then again, if they do, they get half the shots, so you would need twice as many kabalites. All I'm saying is that if that example was meant to demonstrate how good kabalites are compared to other armies, then it's not a very good argument.

Our Eldar players spam wave serpents. The Daemon player spams flying monstrous creatures. The Tau player spams Broadsides. Blood Angel player uses two Storm Ravens and two furioso dreadnoughts in drop pods. Necron player has three annihilation barges and nightscythes.

I have splinter cannons! Yay!

I thought you were saying we are a good shooting army, and we are when it comes to high toughness units. But outside of that, our shooting falls pretty flat. Should we be cheaper? No. Should we be given better tools? Yes.

That nurgle obliterator you mentioned? Costs 29 (+20 depending on upgrades) points less than a ravager and has a better chance of destroying the ravager than the ravager has of killing it. A venom even more embarrassing.

Can I ask how you're doing your math, Agatha?  I'm getting different numbers on most of these.

Are they counting invuln saves on riptide, abaddon, and demon prince or jink saves on bikes, for example? Most of these models are not in a situation where a 6 from a guardian means an auto wound.

I was really just focusing my comments on our core kabalite warriors, Expletive. I'm well aware of the ways we get outgunned on other models. The Crimson Hunter is a perfect example of this and makes me sad on the inside. He has twice as many strength 8 guns, vector dancer, rerollable armor pen rolls against fliers, can upgrade to BS 5 if he cares to, and comes as a fast attack slot to pour salt in my open wounds.

I love my oblits, believe me. Getting 3 of them for a single heavy slot is even more obnoxious. Ravagers are awesome, but unless we can get squadrons or some way to field more of them they won't compare to the heavy slots of most other armies for output.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Can I ask how you're doing your math, Agatha?

Badly, I expect. Please feel free to correct it.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Are they counting invuln saves on riptide, abaddon, and demon prince or jink saves on bikes, for example?

Yes for Abbasong and the demond prince, no for the others. I kind of doubt it will turn it around in the kabalites favour (but I could be wrong?)

Expletive Deleted wrote:

I thought you were saying we are a good shooting army...

To be fair, before some fool went and made the Tau good, and before the eldar got storms of blades, and before everyone got lots of guns with Str 7 and Assault A Million (Ignores Cover), our splinter cannons really were tops. It's just that those things exist now. The game has changed a lot, and we haven't, basically.

lessthanjeff wrote:

I love my oblits, believe me.  Getting 3 of them for a single heavy slot is even more obnoxious.  Ravagers are awesome, but unless we can get squadrons or some way to field more of them they won't compare to the heavy slots of most other armies for output.

Barking Agatha wrote:

To be fair, before some fool went and made the Tau good, and before the eldar got storms of blades, and before everyone got lots of guns with Str 7 and Assault A Million (Ignores Cover), our splinter cannons really were tops. It's just that those things exist now. The game has changed a lot, and we haven't, basically.

To be fair splinter cannons, and even rifles are still very good. My issue is at the other end of the spectrum, as I honestly think dark lances are just garbage now. To get suicide wyches in range generally means losing something on a venom if not the whole thing. Haywire blasters are great but you can't take them in a large enough number to be effective, or on a good unit. Same in regards to heatlances. And I see GW eventually releasing dataslates of Apocalypse formations so there goes your Ravager squadron. Ha!

To be on topic. Heat lances are fairly good at killing MEQ too.

Barking Agatha wrote:

The guardians can only wound the Wraithknight on a 6, but it gets no save against those wounds, so the average number of Shuriken shots that you need to do 6 wounds to a Wraithknight and kill it is:

54

The kabalite warriors wound it on a 4+, but it does get to save against those wounds, so the average number of splinter shots that you need to kill it is:

54 !

Guardians not owned.

Okay...

We do own them versus Riptides with shields (aka, all of them). Flying Daemon Princes, Wolfstar, Screamerstar, Biker Buddy Star, we're tied with them in effectiveness vs. Wraithknights , Seerstar, and IG, they're more effective versus Marines though we have better range and different special rules.

I'm not sure that should make me feel we're inferior on a point by point basis when it comes to killing things.

I also am pretty sure the Eldar don't have a tourney competitive list based around their Guardians (because Guardians actually aren't very good).
I do have a tourney competitive list based around splinter weaponry.
I don't see the issue with suggesting that Kab. Warriors are good, are one of, if not the, best point for point troops in the game, and are a solid mainstay of their army (unlike most other basic non HQ upgrade Troop types who, beside the Ork Boy, are not)

Thor665 wrote:

We do own them versus Riptides with shields (aka, all of them). Flying Daemon Princes, Wolfstar, Screamerstar, Biker Buddy Star,

No we do not.
Riptides (with shields): Kabalites - 90 shots, Guardians - 65 shots.
Flying Demond Princes: Yes, if they don't have warpforge armour, but not if they do.

I'm not sure about the rest. I don't know what a biker buddy star is, but it sounds funny. The point here is that the idea that we 'own' guardians when it comes to shooting big tough things is just. not. true. It only works out that way in extremely specific circumstances: i.e., if you're shooting at something with a high toughness that has an invulnerable save and that doesn't also have an armour save that isn't at least 4+ or better. Yay, us?

Thor665 wrote:

We're tied with them in effectiveness vs. Wraithknights , Seerstar, and IG, they're more effective versus Marines though we have better range and different special rules.

I'm not sure that should make me feel we're inferior on a point by point basis when it comes to killing things.

Ah-ah, but you didn't say 'not inferior', you said we 'owned' them!

Thor665 wrote:

I also am pretty sure the Eldar don't have a tourney competitive list based around their Guardians (because Guardians actually aren't very good).

That's something to think about, isn't it? They actually aren't very good... but they kind of compare favourably to kabalite warriors, and in many cases are actually better?

Thor665 wrote:

I don't see the issue with suggesting that Kab. Warriors are good.

Because some annoying person like me is certain to ask, 'Oh, yeah? Good compared to what?'

Well, computing invulnerable, cover, jink, and dive saves is where the splinter rifles show better results. Their damage is completely unaffected by a model having any of those special saves since the armor save is generally more effective anyway. That's part of the consistency I was admiring in the dark eldar. Not many factors adjust computations so when deciding between shooting at a squad of striking scorpions in the open or a wraithknight heavily entrenched in fortifications with a scattershield, I know I may as well still target the wraithknight. None of his extra defenses affect my damage anyway and I'll actually still cause the same number of wounds to him.

Take a wraithknight standing in a forest, equipped with a shield, or hiding behind a friendly tank, for example. Just getting him a 5+ save from any of those sources changes the calculation to 81 guardian shots required to drop him while the kabalite are still at 54 to do the same.

Most of these scenarios need to be described in more detail to do specifics, but if you shoot at something like a nurgle demon prince that is diving or just standing behind another model/tree the dark eldar are at 36 shots while the guardians are at 54. (I recently shot down and killed 3 flying nurgle princes in a single turn with my trusty warriors and I actually felt kind of bad about it).

For regular space marine bikers I have it at a draw for kabalites and guardians with 1 per 9 getting a kill. If you change it to white scars that have a +1 jink, nurgle bikes with +1 toughness, or any bikers that flat out, the kabalite take the lead because their damage is still 1 per 9 while the guardians fall behind.

I can look at more of those figures if you'd like, but we'd have to set what kind of conditions we're talking about for each case.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Most of these scenarios need to be described in more detail to do specifics.

It's not that difficult. You only need to ask a) Does the enemy you're shooting at have an invulnerable save (including cover saves)? and b) Is that invulnerable save as good as their armour save or better? And c) Are they T5 or higher? If the answer to all three is 'yes', then the kabalites come out ahead. If the answer to any of them is 'no', then the guardians come out even with them or better.

It doesn't matter, because the argument was that kabalite warriors 'own' eldar guardians against things with high toughness, and clearly the guardians aren't 'owned'. They are about even in some cases, slightly ahead in some cases, and slightly behind in some cases. That isn't 'owned' !

And we already know that guardians do 'own' kabalites when shooting at plain old space meringues.

Most of the scenarios I'm putting them at are at 66% efficiency though. I might not say owned, but it seems to disagree with your three question setup. Guardians definitely have some solid strengths, but I think your analysis and assertions are missing the mark.

I say it's difficult to do the calculations without specifics because I can't get your same numbers, that's why I was asking what you ran the numbers based on. The space marine bikers you put at a guardian advantage, for example, but I come up with numbers in the exact opposite direction against the bikers most frequently fielded (white scars, ravenwing, nurgle, or turbo-boosting).

I think the situations guardians actually excel at are when the enemy has a 2+ save. You're saying the guardians are even or better when all three of those conditions are met, but bikers alone disprove that as do other targets like nurgle spawn that are no's to 2 of those questions and actually 3 times more likely to be killed by the kabalite than the guardian.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Because some annoying person like me is certain to ask, 'Oh, yeah? Good compared to what?'

All other Troop choices.

I guess I should have clarified the Riptide thing to Shield *drones*.
But, still, I'm not sad at a .11 wound rate vs. a .14 after the shields are down.
If they don't run shields then I'll accept that Guardians are better as long as they can get range.

Buddy Biker Star is White Scar Bikes paired with Space Wolf wolves in a mass of cover save, high toughness, invulnerable save goodness. It's one of the better competitive builds out there since this is the age of the death star again.

Guardians do not compare favorably to Kab. Warriors; really all you're trying to argue is that the splinter rifle is inferior to the shuriken for the points paid compared to the damage dealt. In doing so you are ignoring range, options in the army, and what you're likely to see across the table. Also, as I noted, I'd give you equal points in Guardians and take the same in Kabalites - I'd expect to win the match basically every time, because I have the superior unit almost simply due to range, but also I'd take my potential for FNP and FC over the vagaries of what Battle Focus will accomplish in the battle of range.

I'd actually wager that probably the Medusa does more damage point for point than a Wave Serpent.

It does not mean it is better than a Wave Serpent nor that it even compares favorably except on a limited metric.

The Kab. Warrior is superior to the Guardian in most ways, and certainly in those that matter in the current environment and also in the way the armies build and play.

The OP is about venom spam, so shouldn't these comparisons include dedicated transports?

Now granted I don't know enough about the other armies to make those kind of comparisons myself, but I do imagine wave serpents would be on top and our venoms would be next in line.

Kabalites unlock the best unit in our codex.

That being said, guardians unlock the best transport, and one of the best units in the game. Though most people use dire avengers for that purpose.

Thor665 wrote:

Buddy Biker Star is White Scar Bikes paired with Space Wolf wolves in a mass of cover save, high toughness, invulnerable save goodness.

How do you pair them? Just, sort of mixed together?

Thor665 wrote:

Guardians do not compare favorably to Kab. Warriors; really all you're trying to argue is that the splinter rifle is inferior to the shuriken for the points paid compared to the damage dealt.

You are being very unfair, Thor. You started it when you wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

80 lasrifle shots from 80 Guardsmen - 4.4 dead Marines.
80 Shoota shots from 40 Orks - 4.4 dead Marines
80 Pulse Rifle shots from 80 Fire Warriors - 5.9 dead Marines
80 Bolter shots from 80 Marines - 8.88 dead Marines.

Did you consider 'range, options in the army, and what you're likely to see across the table'? No, you just went and did a straight up comparison. But if I do the same thing, only with eldar guardians instead, it makes me a dummy? Not fair! It wasn't even my idea to start counting how many dead space meringues can dance on the head of a splinter rifle, it was yours!

And you messed up the maths for the tau, so there!

Thor665 wrote:

The Kab. Warrior is superior to the Guardian in most ways, and certainly in those that matter in the current environment and also in the way the armies build and play.

And I think you're being very prejudiced about eldar guardians. Eldar players don't often use them not because they're not good, but because they have better.

I think people vastly underestimate the new sort-of rending on eldar guns, to cause one wound you need

riptide (all have 5++ which they can novacharge into 3++) G: 13.5 / 27 KW: 18
wraithknight (can get 5++, though is usually played without) G: 9 / 13.5 KW: 9
tervigon is the same as a wraithknight, thought cant buy it's 5++
bikers (5+ constant cover) G: 9 KW: 9
daemon prince is the same as a biker

I'm guessing me and Thor view "Mathhammering" abit differently, but I think this can tell us alot... not sure what, but something. I think a guardian and a kabalite warrior are VERY comperable as to what they can accomplish, and even the range difference isnt that great, 24 vs 12+d6 not counting their heavy weapon platforms.

Also I think you're both wrong about no one using guardians, 20 guardians with 2 brightlances and a wave serpent joined by a farseer (or two) with the shard and forewarning is quite an impactful build and I have seen it used in tournaments... Actually didn't the guy who won Las Vegas Open run one of these blobs or was it 2?

Barking Agatha wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

Buddy Biker Star is White Scar Bikes paired with Space Wolf wolves in a mass of cover save, high toughness, invulnerable save goodness.

How do you pair them? Just, sort of mixed together?

The general build is the Wolves as an ally and the Scars as primary, if that's what you're asking.

Barking Agatha wrote:

You are being very unfair, Thor. You started it when you wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

80 lasrifle shots from 80 Guardsmen - 4.4 dead Marines.
80 Shoota shots from 40 Orks - 4.4 dead Marines
80 Pulse Rifle shots from 80 Fire Warriors - 5.9 dead Marines
80 Bolter shots from 80 Marines - 8.88 dead Marines.

Did you consider 'range, options in the army, and what you're likely to see across the table'? No, you just went and did a straight up comparison.

Yes.
Because the issue on the table was 'splinter weaponry isn't good at killing MEQ' and I was pointing out that it was basically as good as the weaponry of any other troop unit in the game.

You then advanced that Guardians were better on a point for point basis.
If you simply mean 'on killing things within range' then...maybe. But if you mean 'within the scope of the game' then I rather disagree.

Barking Agatha wrote:

But if I do the same thing, only with eldar guardians instead, it makes me a dummy?

Whoah! I really don't think i advanced that idea and apologize if you thought I did. Please don't react to me like you think I'm insulting you, I'm really not having that as a goal.

Barking Agatha wrote:

And you messed up the maths for the tau, so there!

Yes, I agree, I admitted that I did.

Barking Agatha wrote:

And I think you're being very prejudiced about eldar guardians. Eldar players don't often use them not because they're not good, but because they have better.

If they have a better Troop option in the same Codex then, by definition, the lesser option is sub-standard since there is a better standard. I will admit I'm prejudiced towards them as inferior, but I'm that way about Mandrakes too - I'm that way about a lot of stuff. Codices often have bad internal balance, much less external, and I think it's reasonable to look at them within both scopes.

Also, frankly, even if we floated Guardians as a unit entry (though keeping DE dedicated transports) over to our codex - I would still choose to field Kabalites instead of them, and this is because I feel Kabalites are the superior option. That really is the way to consider them in this discussion as I understand it.

If your point is "Guardians aren't terrible" I'll agree.
If it's "Guardians are capable of causing a good amount of damage in a point to point consideration vs. other Troop options in other codices" Again, I agree.
If your stance is "Guardians are superior to Kab. Warriors, and so Kab. Warriors are priced too high in points (which is what I perceived as your stance) then I disagree.

TotingTenderToes wrote:

I'm guessing me and Thor view "Mathhammering" abit differently, but I think this can tell us alot... not sure what, but something. I think a guardian and a kabalite warrior are VERY comperable as to what they can accomplish, and even the range difference isnt that great, 24 vs 12+d6 not counting their heavy weapon platforms.

Your numbers are reflecting the number of shots needed to generate a wound, correct? My numbers usually reflect the number of wounds inflicted based on the number of shots - that's the difference in the presentation.

I think the difference in our math opinions are based on the differences we're assuming for the situation. For the Biker Buddies, for instance, I do presume thunder shields. For basic bikers and Screamerstar, there is turbo boost (in my opinion, the important wounding period to hurt such units is after a turbo-boost prior to their next turn - your experiences may differ, but that's my perception and where I'm coming from). For the Princes I'm taking a mean of both warp forged and daemonic armor possibilities, which is what I tend to perceive. For the Riptide you're also presuming a lack of shields (drones, not nova charged) which makes a marked difference in the ability to put a hurting on the unit. Consequently I do feel that, versus the common seen problem non-vehicle units, that a Kab. Warrior performs better than an Eldar Guardian. I'd even probably say that I think they perform better versus vehicle threats as well, but that one starts to bring in their utility within the army and also brings up how that's not really what Guardians do for their army, so...y'know, complicated.

I disagree with you that 12" + d6 is similar to 24", especially when you add in the possibility of shooting from open topped transports. Even without that, you're saying that 13-18 is not that great a difference to 24. I would say it's 6-11" of difference, which seems not an unreasonable amount of distance to cite as changing the dynamic and utility of the unit - which is what I'm claiming. Thunder Hammers do more damage than Guardians - but you do need to pay attention to the different ability of them to bring damage - an extreme example, but a valid one I feel. Same sort of deal in my earlier Medusa vs. Wave Serpent point - there is more to overall unit quality than damage - there is also the ability to functionally inflict that damage.

Thor665 wrote:

TotingTenderToes wrote:

I'm guessing me and Thor view "Mathhammering" abit differently...

Your numbers are reflecting the number of shots needed to generate a wound, correct? My numbers usually reflect the number of wounds inflicted based on the number of shots - that's the difference in the presentation.

No, I ment on a 'deeper' level, I firmly believe you can calculate anything that has an impact, not easily but it can be done. While you seem to believe there are 'uncalculateables' if that makes sense, but as you said yourself it's complicated. Atleast that's the impression I got, sorry if I'm mistaken.

I wasn't really arguing for one or the other (with the math I provided), I think both Kabalites and Guardians are amazing troops and both are very capable of putting the hurt to big things, I was more replying to Agatha (or whoever it was) wondering how high cover/invul save you needed before the warriors got better (at killing that perticular model).

I'm very much against taking a 'mean' of two situations (prince with or without 3+), I'd much rather look at them separately, if I want to mathhammer something I look at the chances of doing things in all situations I'd consider normal (i.e. things I've personally seen).

Thor665 wrote:

Consequently I do feel that, versus the common seen problem non-vehicle units, that a Kab. Warrior performs better than an Eldar Guardian.

I don't really agree, I think they're about equal. Both are very good vs big things, both are used in their respective armies. Both are good! But as for utility I believe the guardians actually wins out by a tiny mirgin, farseer support (twinlinking/ignores cover) on assault bright lances is better antitank than what the Kabbies can bring.

You're right it's a 6 to 11 inches difference, however it's more skewed towards 6 than 11 with fleet. But guardians have their 'basically assault 1 dark lances' or scatter lasers that have superior reach, and a scatter laser is quite dangerous to most infantry. For "the ability to functionally inflict that damage" I'd almost claim guardians have an advantage if you run those 20man blobs supported by a farseer, which also has to advantage of being able to soak quite abit (alot if you have 2 farseers) fire, woho more hard to calculate utility.

I feel my mainpoint is getting abit lost here though; I think both are good, both can handle a wide varity of targets and both are used in all manner of lists.

Thor665 wrote:

Because the issue on the table was 'splinter weaponry isn't good at killing MEQ' and I was pointing out that it was basically as good as the weaponry of any other troop unit in the game.

You then advanced that Guardians were better on a point for point basis.
If you simply mean 'on killing things within range' then...maybe. But if you mean 'within the scope of the game' then I rather disagree.

No I did not. I was doing the exact same thing that you were doing, only adding eldar guardians to your example, and when you do that, it turns out that splinter weaponry is *not* 'as good as the weaponry of any other troop unit in the game.' That's not to say that it's bad... but it certainly isn't tops. Sorry, but it just isn't.

Thor665 wrote:

Whoah! I really don't think i advanced that idea and apologize if you thought I did. Please don't react to me like you think I'm insulting you, I'm really not having that as a goal.

I'm being flippant, Thor. Honestly, you haven't realised that after all this time? I don't think you could offend me if you tried (please don't try though, I wouldn't like it!). If anything, I apologise to you!

If I did think you had insulted me, I would've written something more like this:

Quote :

'Well, I thought I had a point, but of course I'm only a poor idiot who doesn't understand these things and I really should shut up and not contradict my betters, so please accept my apology for disturbing the absolute truth of everything you say with my impertinent rantings! Sorry!'

But I didn't, see? (Well, except just now I did, but only as an example of what I might have written if I'd been angry, and not because I actually am angry, which I'm not!) Smiles?

Thor665 wrote:

If your point is "Guardians aren't terrible" I'll agree.
If it's "Guardians are capable of causing a good amount of damage in a point to point consideration vs. other Troop options in other codices" Again, I agree.
If your stance is "Guardians are superior to Kab. Warriors, and so Kab. Warriors are priced too high in points (which is what I perceived as your stance) then I disagree.

Ha! You assume I have an actual point! A deadly mistake... (note: being flippant again!)

You know what? Let's ask them...

Meet a kabalite warrior and an eldar guardian. They are both eldar, both Troops, and are both exactly 9 points each. Their profiles are identical. Kabalite warrior, you go first.

KARLOS THE KABALITE: Well, I have Night Vision, which would rule in a special scenario where the night lasts more than five minutes. I also get Power from Pain, which can get me Feel No Pain, and that isn't nothing, that is something!

GARY THE GUARDIAN: What about the next two pain tokens?

KARLOS: Furious Charge and Fearless (*shrugs*). The first one is the main thing, really.

GARY: It's nice though. I get Battle Focus, which helps me get within range to shoot, but more importantly, I can move, shoot, and run out of range of a charge, or rapid fire range, or into cover.

KARLOS: Wow, that's cool. I wish I could be mobile like that on foot.

GARY: You totally should, man. No offense, but it doesn't seem very eldarish to just hunker down in one spot, instead of moving around constantly all over the battlefield. Anyway, check out my shoriuken catputter; it has like, Rending, kind of.

KARLOS: Mine always wounds on 4+ though, so it evens out, right?

GARY: Hmm... not if you're shooting at space meringues. I even mince up termigators with this thing. Does yours do that?

KARLOS: Well, no. Most of the time it's basically just a bolter. I can shoot from 24" away, though.

GARY: Two shots?

KARLOS: No, just the one.

GARY: So, in order to fire two shots, you have to get within the same distance as me, right?

KARLOS: Yes.

GARY: And you can't run out afterwards?

KARLOS: No.

GARY: And everyone gets their armour save, always?

KARLOS: Yeah. Not you, though.

GARY: Actually, if you were shooting at me, it's a disadvantage, isn't it? I usually get wounded on a 3+. You don't know what a relief it is to be wounded on 4+!

KARLOS: I... can imagine.

GARY: Not that you would shoot at me, haha, right buddy?

KARLOS: Wouldn't dream of it...

GARY: So, what else ya got?

KARLOS: For every ten of us, we can bring a splinter cannon or a bright lance, and they're really, really good, you wouldn't believe how good they are.

GARY: Just those two? We get a choice of bright lance, shuriken cannon, scatter laser, starcannon, and a missile launcher with anti-aircraft capability. But hey, at least you can fire them on the move, right?

KARLOS: Well... the splinter cannon gets 4 shots.

GARY: Seriously? I thought you guys were our equals in technology. What about transports?

KARLOS: We get the best ones! Check out the Raider; it has a dark lance, and night shields, and a flickerfield. And you wouldn't believe the firepower on the Venom.

GARY: Wow, those are good. We get a wave serpent.

KARLOS: Yeah, not bad at all. But see, ours are open-topped, so we can all shoot out of them if we want to, as long as we don't go too fast. You guys can't do that on your wave serpents.

GARY: That does sound cool. Seem pretty flimsy, though. What happens when they explode?

KARLOS: Oh, we die in droves. That's why we mostly stay out of them.

GARY: Really? No escape plan? So all that stuff you said about shooting from them... You know, I'm not even going to ask if you have anything like warlocks that can join you and give you powers.

KARLOS: Now you're just making things up, aren't you?

GARY: You know what? I admit I don't get it. It all sounds really difficult and foolhardy to me, but you seem to make it work. Well done you, guy! See you, buddy!

KARLOS: See you... buddy. Watch out for the razorwings.

GARY: The what now? I -- aiii! ow! ow!

So Karlos, any thoughts?

KARLOS: I think it remains inconclusive.

Interesting, Karlos. Gary?

GARY: Ow! Ow! Owie, owie! Ow!

One of the best posts i have ever seen!     

I concur. Thoroughly entertained.

Also, maybe to get the thread back a little more on topic, I've been running just 3 venoms with splinter cannon trueborn and then 3-5 raiders for troop choices. I like having the raiders for when I just need to knock off one more hull point from something and don't want to shoot a whole ravager at it. It also makes it easier for me to justify switching one or two of them to disintegrators to pretty effectively knock out the occasional deepstriking terminator unit or other such nuisance.

Are you guys more of the mindset I should just take more venoms? I'm having a hard time knocking out all the enemy armor values as it is and am already planning on switching another troop choice to wyches to help. I feel like the three venoms has usually been enough to trash an infantry unit each turn with coordinated fire and that the armor values are where we struggle more, but maybe that's just a regional thing?

Not quite, I've been suffering at the hands of armor myself.

Week before last I shot three venoms at a broadside and did one wound to it.

The preceding turn all of my venoms got blown up by rail guns and high yield missiles.

I'm starting to look at DC's again. I used to use them religiously as most of my opponents were space marines. But as I've been facing more variety of armies where I live now, they offer a way to negate armor. The problem I see with a DC versus MEQ now, is that the most competative SM armies use lots of bikes. So even with the DC they're going to get a 5+ or 4+ cover save and perform far poorer than double splinter cannons, and only slightly better than one splinter cannon.

Same thing goes for armor in cover, though admittedly I've seen a lot of people rely on their armor too much and just walk right through the open. Any player worth a damn though is going to try and end their movement in cover if not in assault. So two splinter cannons still outperform the DC.

It's simply the best thing we got, and if it isn't good enough, well then tough cookies.

Edit: You can always look at other units though. Razorwing flocks, incubi, possibly a Talos. Probably in that order of usefulness.

I should have been more specific about problems with armor as in vehicles, but I do agree that splinter weapons have a hard time against anything with a 2+ save. That's where their math falls off a good bit regardless of toughness. You're averaging 18 shots to get a single wound so to take down some broadsides or obliterators I usually use my lances more and aim for instant deaths to help the math (except those pesky nurgle oblits).

Disintegrator Cannons definitely help and it's something where just having one or two can make a big difference in being able to handle a variety of targets on the table. It's hard to switch a bunch of them because that's less dark lance shots though. It's an incentive to not do all venom spam for me since the lances and disintegrators are what I often feel I need more of and the extra hull point doesn't hurt.

I do want to get some beastmaster stuff going. They were terrible in the old codex I had, but it sounds like they've come a long ways now. They also seem like a good quad gun unit by putting a couple cheap beasts in to take the incoming fire and let the beastmaster shoot out. I hate wasting shots from the rest of the squad so it's efficient in that sense and can be customized for more toughness, wounds, or invulnerable saves to help keep it going.

lessthanjeff wrote:

I do want to get some beastmaster stuff going.  They were terrible in the old codex I had, but it sounds like they've come a long ways now.  They also seem like a good quad gun unit by putting a couple cheap beasts in to take the incoming fire and let the beastmaster shoot out.  I hate wasting shots from the rest of the squad so it's efficient in that sense and can be customized for more toughness, wounds, or invulnerable saves to help keep it going.  

Using a beastmaster unit to babysit a quadgun is an horrendous waste of the unit. Beasts are one of our strongest assault options, especially when paired with The Baron. They should be motoring forwards heading straight for the enemy, not sitting at the back to get a BS4 model, of which we have many, on a quadgun.

TotingTenderToes wrote:

No, I ment on a 'deeper' level, I firmly believe you can calculate anything that has an impact, not easily but it can be done.

I'll agree with that - but it certainly goes beyond my understanding of math to work in range and movement in a meaningful way. That said, I do think it's pretty clear they matter, I just lack the ability to show 'how much' clearly.

TotingTenderToes wrote:

But as for utility I believe the guardians actually wins out by a tiny mirgin, farseer support (twinlinking/ignores cover) on assault bright lances is better antitank than what the Kabbies can bring.

Farseer support is pretty darn easy to give Kab. Warriors thanks to the allies rules. I also think that, regardless, that's an argument for how good the Farseer is, not how much utility Guardians have.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'on assault' making the bright lance better than what the Kabs can bring. I mean, neither unit, if packing darklight/brightlight, is really likely to be wanting to assault. Also, if I wanted darklight assault I could take a blast pistol and and blaster and be doing better with Kabs for generating darklight prior to an assault. I'll say that the bright lance via the weapon platform is better for maneuverability than Warriors with a dark lance...but if I'm fielding warriors and want mobile lance power I'll take the Blaster, obviously, and though it lacks in range my vehicle setup is different allowing me to have that as my plan, so I'm more mobile as a trade off. I'll agree that's probably still a nod for the Guardians, but it seems a little straw graspy - you might as well point out that with Storm Guardians they're also better in assault. Yeah...but... I could also claim that the DEldar can take more darklight per unit, which is also true and is a theoretical point in their favor, but is pretty meaningless in most instances despite being clearly better utility.

Barking Agatha wrote:

You know what? Let's ask them...

Meet a kabalite warrior and an eldar guardian. They are both eldar, both Troops, and are both exactly 9 points each. Their profiles are identical. Kabalite warrior, you go first.

KARLOS: I'll be happy to, since you grossly misrepresented me last time.

GARY: How did we misrep you?

KARLOS: Well, let's talk battle focus, y'know, your amazing power of amazing-ness, that lets you (and here I quote)

Gary the Dweeb Eldar wrote:

GARY: It's nice though. I get Battle Focus, which helps me get within range to shoot, but more importantly, I can move, shoot, and run out of range of a charge, or rapid fire range, or into cover.

Oh, wow, Gary, wow, really?

GARY: What...that seems legit...

KARLOS: Does it Gary? What's the range on your mighty pea shooter there?

GARY: 12"

KARLOS: Right...and how far can you move back?

GARY: A re-rollable d6"

KARLOS: Making it...?

GARY: A distance of 13-18" from my enemy.

KARLOS: And, ignoring that you'd still be within most unit's ranges at that stage regardless, let's consider what the assault distance is for most units.

GARY: 13-18"?

KARLOS: Yes, though I'll at least give you that most of them do average around 13", but then most actual assault units in the game tend to be bikes or beasts or jump packs nowadays, so they're actually at 19"+ on average. Also, while we're at it, you're certainly still within their rapid fire range since they can just walk 6" forward and rapid fire you, since your shooting range is about the distance most people lob grenades.

GARY: We can hide in cover though!

KARLOS: Yes...of course you could have just moved in cover in the first place, but, yeah, sure, that could potentially help you. I'll give you that one, but the others were pretty silly. You don't have the range to pull the Tau's trick, not really.

GARY: So, other than that we're awesome, right?

KARLOS: Well, you also mocked me for only getting two shots when I'm in the same range as you.

GARY: Yeah! That was awesometacular of me!

KARLOS: How many shots do you get at 13"?

GARY: ...

KARLOS: What about at 17"?

GARY: ...

KARLOS: Oh, but I have to get to the same range as you to get 2? Yeah, sucks to be me, huh?

GARY: You're kind of a jerk, aren't you?

KARLOS: My thong is attached by hooks that slide into my-

GARY: NEXT TOPIC!

KARLOS: You also called into question my lack of weapon options.

GARY: That's right, you only get the splinter cannon or the dark lance, while I get a grab bag giveaway!

KARLOS: Well, you get 5 options. I get 4.

GARY: That doesn't seem like such a difference anymore, even though I acted like it was earlier.

KARLOS: Also, you have to take ten guys to get 1. I can take ten guys and get 2, or 5 guys and get 1, meaning that I can take more special gear than you can.

GARY: I've still got an eldar missile launcher that can shoot fliers!

KARLOS: Well, that's actually wrong, check your codex, you can't take flakk, only Reaper Exarchs and War Walkers can.

GARY: Oh gawds, I was living a lie and rubbing it in your face...okay, well, wait, we still get the Wave Serpent!

KARLOS: Yeah...a lot of things in your codex get that sucker, it's super powerful.

GARY: That makes us better!

KARLOS: No, that makes your transport better. Besides, people use Dire Avengers if they want to spam Serpents, not you. Also, it's not like our transports are bad, and anyone who thinks we die in droves when they explode is being silly, we die just as much (or less with FNP) than you if your transport dies. The transports are two different things built for two different armies, with totally different setups. Yeah, I'll agree the Wave Serpent is better on pretty much every metric that matters, but that doesn't mean Guardians are better simply because they are one of a wide variety of units that has access to a Wave Serpent. By that logic an Imperial Conscript is better, because if you're fielding them as primary you can take a Warhound.

GARY: But, that's all I have left.

KARLOS: I also left you your rending thing, that is pretty good if short on range. Not that my poison is bad at all, and we actually both have certain targets we perform better against, though it is my stance that the ones I perform better against are more important to perform better at, and most of the ones you perform better at are by a laser edge margin that ignores my superior range.

GARY: We kill Termies better than you!

KARLOS: I kill turbo-boosted bikestars better than you, what of it? Also, I'm not having to get up in their face to do it, which last I checked was a bad thing to do to Termies.

GARY: We also have Farseers, you have to hand us that. Heck, you guys keep wanting to borrow them.

KARLOS: Oh yeah? Want to talk about the Baron? Y'know, the guy who actually makes your deathstar work "any good at all"?

GARY: I guess we do have a lot of differences, but certainly together we're both more powerful than apart.

KARLOS: So, any other thoughts?

GARY: I might suggest it remains inconclusive, but with more consideration I certainly see I'm not remotely as far ahead as I was suggesting earlier.

KARLOS: I'd also like to add I'm more fun at parties.

GARY: I don't think that's true, I have been known to "cut a rug" in my day.

KARLOS: ...

GARY: I can unwind and get loose in the goose.

KARLOS: We're done here.

Thor665 wrote:

GARY: You're kind of a jerk, aren't you?

KARLOS: My thong is attached by hooks that slide into my-

GARY: NEXT TOPIC!

  

Thor665 wrote:

... to work in range and movement in a meaningful way.

Ye I'm not sure how I'd do it either, a friend of mine made a simple monte carlo simulation of basic troops shooting each other and I think he basically made it so if one of the threatbubbles was 6" greater that unit got one 'free' turn of shooting (so firewarriors would get 1 free turn against marines or 3 against guardians). Something like that could work if you simply want to know if X kills Y in a vacuum, but quickly breaks down if you start factoring in terrain, other units, the fact that units can't be compressed into point-like singularities or simply want utility.  

Thor666 wrote:

Farseer support is pretty darn easy to give Kab. Warriors thanks to the allies rules.

I suppose, but it's not something I've ever seen done, but you're right not really an argument for guardians.

Thor667 wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'on assault'...

Sorry english isn't my first language, I ment they can move and fire it at full ballistic skill.

Thor668 wrote:

... but it seems a little straw graspy

I don't agree at all, noting that one of the two choices can have a 36+d6 darklance while moving is a very legitimate point in their favour.

As I said earlier I'm not really arguing for either one, I think both are great. I will however argue against that guardians are never used, both are used in lists for all levels of 'competativeness'. I know both Skari and Reecius (their battlereports are part of the reason I started playing dark eldar) use 20man guardian blobs and love the crap out of them.