HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
AuthorMessage
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Sun Nov 08 2015, 19:00

lessthanjeff wrote:
Maybe your metas are different than mine, but I find warriors priceless for the influx of white scar and ravenwing bike armies alone.  Compared to the other troop choices you're pushing as superior, I take less damage than them from grav, deal more damage to them than the gauss flayers, bolters, pulse rifles, and shuriken weapons do, and cost less than any of them.  

You're right - it might just be down to different metas.

I don't see many bikes, and when I do the venoms are usually more than enough to remove them (with the advantage of being able to do so at 3 times the range).

I don't see many MCs either. Usually when I do, they either have 2+ saves or (in the most recent example) had Fortune to reroll armour saves. So, I'd much rather have plasma, Grav, pseudo-rending or other such to take them out.


Perhaps if I faced more bike armies or nid MC lists, I'd have a higher opinion of Warriors. As it is, what I mostly see is a lot of vehicles and a lot of T4 units. And Warriors are terrible against the former, and mediocre against the latter. Neutral

Nevertheless, I'll try some more Warrior-heavy lists and see if I can get them to do well.
Back to top Go down
colinsherlow
Wych
avatar

Posts : 883
Join date : 2011-11-23
Location : Vancouver BC

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Sun Nov 08 2015, 20:58

I tend to run either lots of warriors or very few. I tend to run fewer as I prefer to take the more killy stuff like blasterborn, razorwings, ravagers, scourges etc. Bit running 2-3 gunboats and 3-4 venoms is hardly ever a bad idea.


_________________
There are two things that I love. Kicking ass and chewing bubble gum... And I'm allllll out of bubble gum!
Back to top Go down
Fraust
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 68
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : It bounces around a bit.

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Mon Nov 09 2015, 19:05

I don't think of warriors as a true tax, but I can't agree with anyone saying they're significantly better than most other troop choices. Not to take things too far off track, but the previous discussion on the blaster was enlightening. I really just can't see how people view five warriors with a blaster is a good use of points. A threat to any unit? Sorry, but it just isn't. It isn't enough poison to be a threat to a good majority of infantry units out there, and a single blaster isn't a credible threat to anything in the game. Sure, it CAN put a wound on something, or a hull point...but the chances are low, and the low possibility of a single wound/hull point just isn't worth much. Not in my opinion.

That said, I do like warriors, and don't feel horrible about using them. Often, they're bad enough most opponents don't put much effort into them, and they're decent enough they can be used to take advantage of that. The venom is nice, and a min squad and transport is pretty cheap, fairly mobile, and works as a good harassment unit...plus can split off from eachother to cover two objectives late in the game. I want to like raider gun boats, but it starts getting into the not cheap level, where I'd rather just spend the points on something else.
Back to top Go down
Trystis
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 221
Join date : 2012-12-01

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Tue Nov 10 2015, 08:45

Warriors are definitely worth taking. Per point I think they are one of the best troops in the game, especially when you take into account their Raider or Venom.

I prefer them to my tac marines for sure. Tac marines pay a ton of points to be mediocre/suck. I started a Dark Angels army recently and I now understand why space marines get free transports if you take a lot of marines. Even with the free transports they still kind of suck at anything other than taking objectives, which is a great strategy that is very winnable, but you will still struggle to win a battle not based on objectives.

If we had a formation that gave us free transports for taking warriors It would be amazing. It would feel op (not that I would mind, its seems pretty fluffy to me). I have found that warriors for their points are just plain better than marines.

Necrons are decent, particularly at holding an objective though.
Back to top Go down
CptMetal
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2650
Join date : 2015-03-03
Location : Ruhr Metropolian Area

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Tue Nov 10 2015, 08:52

If you think that loyal tactical Marines are bad because they only got a shot load of bones rules than you are crazy. I hope you never play Chaos Marines...

_________________
+++++INCOMING TRANSMISSION+++++
The Dark Eldar Codex sucks. You probably won just because your enemy loaded his dice to loose. Never forget this mantra and spread the word. Mention it in every discussion possible, people can´t get enough of that valuable information and need to be reminded regularely.
+++++END OF TRANSMISSION+++++
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t12720-tainted-reborn
Back to top Go down
Trystis
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 221
Join date : 2012-12-01

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Tue Nov 10 2015, 09:13

CptMetal wrote:
If you think that loyal tactical Marines are bad because they only got a shot load of bones rules than you are crazy. I hope you never play Chaos Marines...

I have played chaos, quite a bit actually. You will get no argument from me that CSM are bad, in fact I think that they are probably the worst troop in the game. Wychs may even be better, and I use them so rarely that I don't remember how to spell their name.

Tacticals need all of those special rules to not be worthless i.e. CSM. Even with them it's hard to kill off enough stuff to make them worthwhile, and their is plenty of ap2 and 3 around nowadays so you're frequently just getting a cover save, like my warriors would have, but without the benefit of possibly having feel no pain. The SM and DA codexes have some powerful builds, but the tacticals are pure tax in them. Whereas DE warriors are the backbone of some of our best army lists (partially because our codex is pretty meh, if we had formations like ravenguard or lions blade our codex could be pretty competitive).

Having said that ATSNF is a broken rule that serves to diminish the game.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 6635
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Tue Nov 10 2015, 10:22

In my opinion, Kabalites are worth taking only in so far as they are the best of a bad bunch, ie they're better than Wyches. And I absolutely cannot agree with the people saying they are amongst the best troop units in the game. About the best thing I can say about them is that they're fairly cheap. In terms of offensive ability they're shockingly bad and defensively they're even worse.

Offense - A full unit of 10 Kabalites rapid-firing with Splinter Racks kill a grand total of 3 MEQ. In melee, they lose against almost anything. No grenades, 1 attack, S3 with no AP is not going to scare anyone. Okay, in theory they can, if you give them a blaster, harm anything on the table but the real question is what are the chances of doing so?

Defense - Their armour is basically non-existant as almost all weapons that will ever be fired at them are AP5 or better (only exceptions I can think of off-hand being IG, Ork and Tyranid troop weaponry). FNP is nice as a secondary save but when it's basically your only save then it's not so good. T3 is of course a real kicker as it not only makes them very easy to wound in the first place but also means their only defense (FNP) is very often negated. Then there's the fact that with 7e changes there is literally nowhere to hide from Ignores Cover weaponry as they can now still be targeted even within vehicles and buildings.

So essentially we have a (potentially) ObjSec unit that can't take or hold objectives unless the objectives are unguarded and the Kabalites are left entirely unmolested.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Tue Nov 10 2015, 11:11

Count Adhemar wrote:
In my opinion, Kabalites are worth taking only in so far as they are the best of a bad bunch, ie they're better than Wyches. And I absolutely cannot agree with the people saying they are amongst the best troop units in the game. About the best thing I can say about them is that they're fairly cheap. In terms of offensive ability they're shockingly bad and defensively they're even worse.

Offense - A full unit of 10 Kabalites rapid-firing with Splinter Racks kill a grand total of 3 MEQ. In melee, they lose against almost anything. No grenades, 1 attack, S3 with no AP is not going to scare anyone. Okay, in theory they can, if you give them a blaster, harm anything on the table but the real question is what are the chances of doing so?

Defense - Their armour is basically non-existant as almost all weapons that will ever be fired at them are AP5 or better (only exceptions I can think of off-hand being IG, Ork and Tyranid troop weaponry). FNP is nice as a secondary save but when it's basically your only save then it's not so good. T3 is of course a real kicker as it not only makes them very easy to wound in the first place but also means their only defense (FNP) is very often negated. Then there's the fact that with 7e changes there is literally nowhere to hide from Ignores Cover weaponry as they can now still be targeted even within vehicles and buildings.

So essentially we have a (potentially) ObjSec unit that can't take or hold objectives unless the objectives are unguarded and the Kabalites are left entirely unmolested.

I think this sums up my thoughts on warriors far more eloquently than I managed earlier.


Something else I'd like to add though is that they're just so limited in terms of builds/options. I mean, whether or not you think tactical marines are better, you have a choice of:
- plasmagun
- meltagun
- grav-gun
- flamer
- heavy bolter
- multi-melta
- plasma cannon
- missile launcher
- lascannon
- grav-cannon

So, what are we allowed?
- a Dark Lance
- another Dark Lance
- a crappy blast
- more poison shots (we were running a bit short)

Moreover, unlike marines, only 2 of the above are available to 5-man warrior squads. So, if you want a 5-man warrior squad, then a SM squad has literally 5 times as many options. And, unlike stuff like Grey Hunters, Battle Sisters etc. we're not allowed to double up on special weapons. Hell, we can't even take combi-weapons, because God forbid our sergeants ever be worth a damn.

Now, this might be forgiveable... if the 4 options we are allowed weren't so bloody awful. Dark Lances remove our mobility, Splinter Cannons weren't great in 5th, and were then hit with the nerf bat again for no reason, Shredders are so bad that I'm insulted to share my username with them, and I've already explained how terrible blasters are on the other thread. But, even if you like blasters, at the very least they remove any option of specialisation. You can't have melta to be dedicated anti-tank, you can't have plasma or grav to go MC hunting. All you can do is be mediocre at everything (and 'mediocre' is being generous). And, with no flamer option, you can't even kit them out to be good against infantry.

I realise that I'm starting to descend again into what Warriors should be (sorry, Thor Embarassed ), but when they're basically our only troop choice I'd like to see some more options/customisation.
Back to top Go down
Creeping Darkness
Wych
avatar

Posts : 521
Join date : 2012-11-21

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Tue Nov 10 2015, 20:36

Shredder wrote:
So, what are we allowed?
- a Dark Lance
- another Dark Lance
- a crappy blast
- more poison shots (we were running a bit short)

Our dearth of equipment annoys me (it's the same upgrade choices as we had available in 1999... except less of them), and the lack of grenades too. Fire Warriors get haywire grenades and we can't? Not even plasma... Sad

Maybe I sell them short. I want to like Warriors. Maybe I expect too much from them. I might try a few different configurations, as per the first page.

_________________
The Dark Eldar and Dissynergy.
3d printed Dark Eldar bits on Shapeways.
Back to top Go down
http://thecreepingdarkness.blogspot.com
stilgar27
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 468
Join date : 2012-12-04

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Tue Nov 10 2015, 23:26

The utter lack of load out options is the real weakness of kabalites, and the dark eldar book in general.  This is one of the issues that actually got worse in the 7th edition books (well trueborn anyway).

Not that you need more fuel for the fire shredder, but you're forgetting that the sergeant in any marine squad also has a huge list of options he can take including combi-versions of roughly half of the above listed weapons.

Our sergeants instead costs an extra 10 points and only really have expensive, extremely situation upgrades.

Even marine or craftworld vehicles have more options available than ours, and we basically live on our vehicles.
Back to top Go down
lessthanjeff
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 338
Join date : 2014-03-09
Location : Orlando, FL

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 00:09

Count Adhemar wrote:


Offense - A full unit of 10 Kabalites rapid-firing with Splinter Racks kill a grand total of 3 MEQ. In melee, they lose against almost anything. No grenades, 1 attack, S3 with no AP is not going to scare anyone. Okay, in theory they can, if you give them a blaster, harm anything on the table but the real question is what are the chances of doing so?

Defense - Their armour is basically non-existant as almost all weapons that will ever be fired at them are AP5 or better (only exceptions I can think of off-hand being IG, Ork and Tyranid troop weaponry). FNP is nice as a secondary save but when it's basically your only save then it's not so good. T3 is of course a real kicker as it not only makes them very easy to wound in the first place but also means their only defense (FNP) is very often negated. Then there's the fact that with 7e changes there is literally nowhere to hide from Ignores Cover weaponry as they can now still be targeted even within vehicles and buildings.

I think the mistake many make is to look at their damage output against MEQ.  That's not what makes warriors good though, it's their ability to damage the tougher units.  Here are common units to face in other armies where the Dark Eldar Warrior comes out as very powerful.

Space Marines: Bikes (everywhere with White Scars and Ravenwing), Thunderfire Cannon, Centurions
Necron: Wraiths, Lychguard, Destroyers and Super Destroyers (I even see the occasional C'tan)
Tau: Riptide, Ghostkeel, Stormsurge
Chaos: Bikes, Daemon Princes (including Bloodthirsters, Lord of Change, Belakor, Fateweaver), Spawn
Eldar: Wraithguard, Wraithlord, Wraithknight
Space Wolves: Thunderwolf Cavalry galore
Tyranid: Flyrant, Carnifex, Mawloc

Go run the numbers for the other troop choices you say are better like space marines and tell me that it's fair for our unit to cost 30 points less.

For durability, if your warriors don't have cover or a ride, then something has gone wrong.  Even if it's just a 5+ cover save, they come out better than many troops do because of the FNP we get.  Compared to marines, we may crumple to bolters more, but we end up being tougher against some of the commonly spammed weapons like grav since we do have the extra save.  If an opponent is firing ignore cover weapons at my warriors, then I'll take it because I much prefer that to going after my vehicles.  Most armies are usually only able to secure ignores cover against one or two targets, rejoice if they choose a 40 point squad for it.

I'll reiterate, that I'd much rather be good at killing those elite units I mentioned than at killing MEQ's, and that's what we have.
Back to top Go down
Klaivex Charondyr
Wych
avatar

Posts : 918
Join date : 2014-09-08

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 09:06

You ignore the fact that nearly every other race still got Plasma and Snipers.
While it is true that it is an advantage that even our basic troops can wound certain units, other races are not helpless either.

Also your list does contain GMC (Wraithknight and Stormsurge) who can only get wounded by poison on a 6.

Quote :
I'll reiterate, that I'd much rather be good at killing those elite units I mentioned than at killing MEQ's, and that's what we have.

Who cares about these elite units when EVERYONE is good at killing them?
Also this "advantage" comes with the huge disatvantage of beeing TERRIBLE against everything with T3. Well you might wound that nurgle biker on a 4+ but the cultist over there is as tough to wound for you.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 6635
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 10:03

There's also the fact that Kabalites cannot so much as scratch any vehicle either with shooting or melee with their default equipment.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 10:59

lessthanjeff wrote:
I think the mistake many make is to look at their damage output against MEQ.  That's not what makes warriors good though, it's their ability to damage the tougher units.

But that's the point - you're assuming that there will always be ideal targets for them. A lot of the time, there won't be.

Moreover, you're also assuming that these ideal targets will still be around after being shot by several venoms.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Space Marines: Bikes (everywhere with White Scars and Ravenwing), Thunderfire Cannon, Centurions

Not everyone plays White Scars or Ravenwing. Many players use a Gladius (or two), with few to no bikes.

Centurions... really? You think warriors are good against those 2-wound, 2+ save units?

Also, what SM player looks at DE and thinks to themselves "Yep, this Thunderfire cannon will be a great frontline unit." Surely that thing will be behind some LoS blocking terrain? And, if it isn't, are your warriors really getting to shoot it before your venoms?

Necron: Wraiths, Lychguard, Destroyers and Super Destroyers (I even see the occasional C'tan)[/quote]

Eh? How are Warriors great against any of those? I mean, as a Necron player, if you want to dump some warriors within 12" of my Wraiths or lychguard, be my guest. And, have fun getting close to my Destroyers with JSJ.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Tau: Riptide, Ghostkeel, Stormsurge

Again, warriors are not good against 2+ save units. Poison isn't good against these units to begin with, and Warriors lack the volume of shots needed to do any meaningful damage.

Also, Stormsurge? Are you just trolling at this point? You think Warriors are good against an 8-wound gargantuan creature that they need 6s to wound? TheDarkCity really needs a faceplam smiley.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Chaos: Bikes, Daemon Princes (including Bloodthirsters, Lord of Change, Belakor, Fateweaver), Spawn

Isn't Belakor a FMC with a 2+ jink save? Have fun with that one.

The others... maybe? But this still seems to be a list of units you really wouldn't want to be near enough to shoot with Warriors.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Eldar: Wraithguard, Wraithlord, Wraithknight

Do you even see Wraithlords these days?

And, by what possible measure are Warriors good against Wraithknights? "Yeah, if you have about 250% of the WK's cost in Warriors, and manage to dump all of them within rapid-fire range, and the WK doesn't have cover, then you can take it out." Outstanding.


Okay, at this point I can't be bothered going through the remainder of your list. I'm not even sure what you're listing. It's certainly not a list of what Warriors are good against. I'd say it was a maybe a list of what poison is good against (ignoring that 12 shots at 36" are very different to 8-10 shots at 12"), but you added Gargantuan MCs... so that doesn't work either. Frankly, it seems like you've just listed everything with a toughness value over 4, with no thought whatsoever about whether you'd actually see them, and whether Warriors would actually be good against them. See, Warriors have an effective range of 12". yes, they can fire at 24", but they're not good against anything at that range. But, you seem to have ignored this entirely - as your list contains a plethora of units where you'd struggle to close within 12", or simply wouldn't want to be that close.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Go run the numbers for the other troop choices you say are better like space marines and tell me that it's fair for our unit to cost 30 points less.

Go run the damn numbers yourself. You're the one saying Warriors are good against all the above, you do the math and prove it.

lessthanjeff wrote:

For durability, if your warriors don't have cover or a ride, then something has gone wrong.  Even if it's just a 5+ cover save, they come out better than many troops do because of the FNP we get.  Compared to marines, we may crumple to bolters more, but we end up being tougher against some of the commonly spammed weapons like grav since we do have the extra save.

And if a marine player is using Grav against warriors, something has gone equally wrong. Moreover, you're forgetting that we don't have the extra save against anything with S6+

lessthanjeff wrote:
 If an opponent is firing ignore cover weapons at my warriors, then I'll take it because I much prefer that to going after my vehicles.  Most armies are usually only able to secure ignores cover against one or two targets, rejoice if they choose a 40 point squad for it.

Out of interest, how does this differ when shooting marines (or similar troops) with expensive, low-AP weapons? I mean, if someone is using their expensive Grav weapons to shoot Tactical Marines, I can't see the Marine player being too upset.

lessthanjeff wrote:

I'll reiterate, that I'd much rather be good at killing those elite units I mentioned than at killing MEQ's, and that's what we have.

Except that, Warriors really aren't good at killing most of those elite units you listed. Moreover, you seem to be saying that other troops can't possibly be good at killing elite units. In which case I'd advise you to look into, say, SMs with a Grav Cannon and Grav Amp.
Back to top Go down
Painjunky
Wych
avatar

Posts : 851
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Sunshine Coast

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 12:01

I have low expectations of my kabalites and im ok with them.

I've tried 10 in a splinter rack raider and 5 with blaster but i find both too expensive for what they do.

5 kabalites can hide next to objs while their venom goes hunting so i like them but again, low expectations.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 6635
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 12:10

I generally feel that I succeed with Dark Eldar in spite of Kabalites rather than because of them. Which is a shame for our only "viable" troop unit.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 12:14

Painjunky wrote:

5 kabalites can hide next to objs while their venom goes hunting

That's true, but so can a 10pt Lhamaean. Wink
Back to top Go down
lessthanjeff
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 338
Join date : 2014-03-09
Location : Orlando, FL

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 15:09

The Shredder wrote:

But that's the point - you're assuming that there will always be ideal targets for them. A lot of the time, there won't be.

Moreover, you're also assuming that these ideal targets will still be around after being shot by several venoms.

Not everyone plays White Scars or Ravenwing. Many players use a Gladius (or two), with few to no bikes.

Centurions... really? You think warriors are good against those 2-wound, 2+ save units?

Also, what SM player looks at DE and thinks to themselves "Yep, this Thunderfire cannon will be a great frontline unit." Surely that thing will be behind some LoS blocking terrain? And, if it isn't, are your warriors really getting to shoot it before your venoms?

Eh? How are Warriors great against any of those? I mean, as a Necron player, if you want to dump some warriors within 12" of my Wraiths or lychguard, be my guest. And, have fun getting close to my Destroyers with JSJ.

Again, warriors are not good against 2+ save units. Poison isn't good against these units to begin with, and Warriors lack the volume of shots needed to do any meaningful damage.

Also, Stormsurge? Are you just trolling at this point? You think Warriors are good against an 8-wound gargantuan creature that they need 6s to wound? TheDarkCity really needs a faceplam smiley.

Isn't Belakor a FMC with a 2+ jink save? Have fun with that one.

The others... maybe? But this still seems to be a list of units you really wouldn't want to be near enough to shoot with Warriors.

Do you even see Wraithlords these days?

And, by what possible measure are Warriors good against Wraithknights? "Yeah, if you have about 250% of the WK's cost in Warriors, and manage to dump all of them within rapid-fire range, and the WK doesn't have cover, then you can take it out." Outstanding.


Okay, at this point I can't be bothered going through the remainder of your list. I'm not even sure what you're listing. It's certainly not a list of what Warriors are good against. I'd say it was a maybe a list of what poison is good against (ignoring that 12 shots at 36" are very different to 8-10 shots at 12"), but you added Gargantuan MCs... so that doesn't work either. Frankly, it seems like you've just listed everything with a toughness value over 4, with no thought whatsoever about whether you'd actually see them, and whether Warriors would actually be good against them. See, Warriors have an effective range of 12". yes, they can fire at 24", but they're not good against anything at that range. But, you seem to have ignored this entirely - as your list contains a plethora of units where you'd struggle to close within 12", or simply wouldn't want to be that close.

Go run the damn numbers yourself. You're the one saying Warriors are good against all the above, you do the math and prove it.

And if a marine player is using Grav against warriors, something has gone equally wrong. Moreover, you're forgetting that we don't have the extra save against anything with S6+

Out of interest, how does this differ when shooting marines (or similar troops) with expensive, low-AP weapons? I mean, if someone is using their expensive Grav weapons to shoot Tactical Marines, I can't see the Marine player being too upset.

Except that, Warriors really aren't good at killing most of those elite units you listed. Moreover, you seem to be saying that other troops can't possibly be good at killing elite units. In which case I'd advise you to look into, say, SMs with a Grav Cannon and Grav Amp.

What I'm pointing out is that Warriors do twice or three times as much damage against these units as other troop choices.  I'm not saying you're going to kill these units with a single unit of warriors, I'm showing that we pay less for a unit that does significantly more damage against them than the other troops you're saying are better.  So how is our troop choice the bad one?

Sure, we only wound that gargantuan creature on a 6, but what does the Space Marine wound it on?  It would be absurd if we payed 40 points for a unit that did more damage universally against every target on table.  All these units I listed are commonly faced examples of where our troops are better than our opponents.

You say we can't get our units in range of these other models, but then also ignore we have some of the best and fastest transport options that allow us to do exactly that.  Yeah, if you send one unit of warriors out there against them it's going to be a lost squad, but because of how inexpensive they are I frequently have several units of them firing at a target at the same time and that's how I bring down all these units like destroyers and wraiths and daemon princes that you're dismissing.  I wouldn't approach those units with my fire warriors, space marines, or necron, but I feel fine doing it with my dark eldar because they have a better chance of taking those units down and even if they fail it was a smaller investment on my part than it would have been with the other troops.

If you think all of this is trolling, then tell me which troop you would rather have here and show how they're better against these elite units.  I'd still rather have my strength be against the tough/elite models than the T3 variety.  Those aren't threats to my army.
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 15:40

lessthanjeff wrote:

What I'm pointing out is that Warriors do twice or three times as much damage against these units as other troop choices.  I'm not saying you're going to kill these units with a single unit of warriors, I'm showing that we pay less for a unit that does significantly more damage against them than the other troops you're saying are better.  So how is our troop choice the bad one?

Because you're only considering basic weapons, and ignoring special weapons.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Sure, we only wound that gargantuan creature on a 6, but what does the Space Marine wound it on?

With a Grav cannon, they have 3 AP2 shots at 12" that wound it on 3s with rerolls. If they didn't move, then they have 5 of those shots at 24".

2 units of 5 Warriors with a blaster (110pts) will average 0.84 wounds on the WK.
1 unit of SMs with a Grav Cannon (105pts) will average 1.19 wounds if it moved, or 1.98 wounds if it moved.

lessthanjeff wrote:

You say we can't get our units in range of these other models, but then also ignore we have some of the best and fastest transport options that allow us to do exactly that.

I didn't ignore that. Even with our super fast transports, we can still only move 6" if we want to get out and still shoot. That's 12" of extra range, assuming no intervening terrain or such. Considering that many of the models you mentioned can move at least 12", I don't see how your transports help.

I guess you could turbo-boost your venoms next to them, but that then puts them at great risk, as well as preventing your venoms from firing (when they'd be considerably more effective than the warriors).

lessthanjeff wrote:
Yeah, if you send one unit of warriors out there against them it's going to be a lost squad, but because of how inexpensive they are I frequently have several units of them firing at a target at the same time and that's how I bring down all these units like destroyers and wraiths and daemon princes that you're dismissing.

You're starting to talk about a lot of points invested in warriors and transports. And, do your opponents never do anything? They just let you park half a dozen warrior squads next to your target? Even when that target can outpace and out-range your warriors?

Also, do your transports never get shot down in the early game (leaving some of your warriors stranded)?

lessthanjeff wrote:

If you think all of this is trolling, then tell me which troop you would rather have here and show how they're better against these elite units.  I'd still rather have my strength be against the tough/elite models than the T3 variety.  Those aren't threats to my army.

I've yet to see any actual evidence from you about why warriors are good against a lot of these elite units. Poison does not instantly make them amazing - especially against gargantuan creatures, FMCs and units where their damage output is pitiful.
Back to top Go down
Fraust
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 68
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : It bounces around a bit.

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 17:21

9 warriors rapid firing vs...
bikes...18 x 2/3 x 1/2 x 1/3 = 2 on 1 wound models, so not terrible
I don't know the specs on a Thunderfire Cannon
Centurions...18 x 2/3 x 1/2 x 1/6 = .5 on 2 wound models, so not good at all.
Wraiths...18 x 2/3 x 1/2 x 1/3 = 2 on 2 wound models who potentially turn that to 1 due to RP.
I don't know enough specs on the other necron stuff. I believe outside of formation bonuses lychguard would be the same as marines divided by 2 due to RP.
Chaos bikes are bikes, though we win out here as points spent on mark of nurgle are wasted against us...though feel no pain hurts.
daemon prince...18 x 1/6 x 1/2 x 1/3 = .5 on a 4 wound model, so not good in my opinion, added in the fact that they might have feel no pain and/or a 2+ cover save, or a 2++ rerollable.
I don't know specs on bloodthirster in the KDK book.
Lord of Change...18 x 1/6 x 1/2 x 1/2 = .75 so not all that great. There is the advantage of LoC being a good assault unit, so it's likely to see it on the ground.
Fateweaver...same as the LoC base, though very likely to be trotting a 2++ rerollable.
Be'Lakore...same as the LoC base, though very likely to be trotting a 2+ cover from shrouding.
Riptide...18 x 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/6 x 2/3 = 1/3 so not impressive at all.
I'm shaky on the ghostkeel and stormsurge specs.
Wraithguard...same as marines, so not bad considering we're talking 30 point models.
Wraithlord...same as marines, so not bad at all consider it's 2/3rds the life of a 120 point model.
Wraithknight...same as a daemon prince...so bloody terrible.
Thunderwolf....should be same as marines if I'm right on their stats, so pretty good as I don't know their value, but I assume it's high.
Nids, again I don't have a firm enough grasp of their stats and common load outs to feel confident running numbers.
Back to top Go down
Fraust
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 68
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : It bounces around a bit.

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 17:58

3 grav destroyers vs... (I'm going to do this with troop units I normally use)
Bikes...18 x 1/2 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 3 so not too shabby, also it forced them to jink which is a plus
Centurions...18 x 1/2 x 5/6 x 2/3 = 5 so we've killed 2 and a half two wound models
Wraiths...do wraiths have any armor save? If not the destroyers are pretty crap here.
Chaos Bikes...again, bikes are bikes in this situation, and again mark of nurgle doesn't help, but mark of slaanesh might a little.
Daemon Prince...18 x 1/6 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 1 wound and causes them to jink.
Lord of Change...18 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 2/3 = 1/3 so pretty much nothing...I'm assuming no jink here as there's no need.
Fateweaver...same as LoC but better due to the better invuln and likely 2++ rerollable
Be'Lakore...18 x 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/2 = 1/4 and no jink so terrible.
Riptide...18 x 1/2 x 5/6 x 2/3 x 2/3= 10/3 so three wounds and the model is mostly dead.
Wraithguard...18 x 1/2 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 4 very expensive dead models
Wraithlord...same as above, though really 1 very expensive dead model
Wraithknight...18 x 1/2 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 2 which isn't bad, also considering ruin saves as it's unlikely to get traditional cover, and all it needs is a toe in to get the 4+.
Thunderwolf...When I saw these ran it was almost all storm shields, which makes it a bad target for the destroyers. Not sure if that's the case anymore, though I imagine there's likely a few in there.
Back to top Go down
lessthanjeff
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 338
Join date : 2014-03-09
Location : Orlando, FL

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 18:53

The Shredder wrote:
lessthanjeff wrote:

What I'm pointing out is that Warriors do twice or three times as much damage against these units as other troop choices.  I'm not saying you're going to kill these units with a single unit of warriors, I'm showing that we pay less for a unit that does significantly more damage against them than the other troops you're saying are better.  So how is our troop choice the bad one?

Because you're only considering basic weapons, and ignoring special weapons.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Sure, we only wound that gargantuan creature on a 6, but what does the Space Marine wound it on?

With a Grav cannon, they have 3 AP2 shots at 12" that wound it on 3s with rerolls. If they didn't move, then they have 5 of those shots at 24".

2 units of 5 Warriors with a blaster (110pts) will average 0.84 wounds on the WK.
1 unit of SMs with a Grav Cannon (105pts) will average 1.19 wounds if it moved, or 1.98 wounds if it moved.

lessthanjeff wrote:

You say we can't get our units in range of these other models, but then also ignore we have some of the best and fastest transport options that allow us to do exactly that.

I didn't ignore that. Even with our super fast transports, we can still only move 6" if we want to get out and still shoot. That's 12" of extra range, assuming no intervening terrain or such. Considering that many of the models you mentioned can move at least 12", I don't see how your transports help.

I guess you could turbo-boost your venoms next to them, but that then puts them at great risk, as well as preventing your venoms from firing (when they'd be considerably more effective than the warriors).

lessthanjeff wrote:
Yeah, if you send one unit of warriors out there against them it's going to be a lost squad, but because of how inexpensive they are I frequently have several units of them firing at a target at the same time and that's how I bring down all these units like destroyers and wraiths and daemon princes that you're dismissing.

You're starting to talk about a lot of points invested in warriors and transports. And, do your opponents never do anything? They just let you park half a dozen warrior squads next to your target? Even when that target can outpace and out-range your warriors?

Also, do your transports never get shot down in the early game (leaving some of your warriors stranded)?

lessthanjeff wrote:

If you think all of this is trolling, then tell me which troop you would rather have here and show how they're better against these elite units.  I'd still rather have my strength be against the tough/elite models than the T3 variety.  Those aren't threats to my army.

I've yet to see any actual evidence from you about why warriors are good against a lot of these elite units. Poison does not instantly make them amazing - especially against gargantuan creatures, FMCs and units where their damage output is pitiful.

Part of our strength and efficiency in cost is that we don't need to drop more points into the squads to still do damage to those units.  We can consider special weapons too, but I will say that I see grav on bikes and centurions and not on tacticals.  For those I see plasma guns and melta guns drop podding in.  (If you want evidence to support that, check out dakka dakka army lists.  I went through the first page of each space marine list and didn't see a single list with tacticals wielding grav).

5 tacticals with 1 plasma gun (85 points) against a Riptide.
18-24" : Average 10/27 wounds (0.37)
12-18" : Average 10/27 wounds (0.37)
0-12" : Average 12/27 wounds (0.44)

9 Kabalite Warriors with 1 blaster (87 points) against a Riptide
18-24" : Average 12/27 wounds (0.44)
12-18" : Average 22/27 wounds (0.81)
0-12" : Average 34/27 wounds (1.26)

Most tacticals actually run melta guns, so let's look at that instead then.

5 tacticals with 1 melta gun (80 points) against a Riptide
18-24" : 2/27 wounds (0.07)
12-18" : 2/27 wounds (0.07)
0-12" : 12/27 wounds (0.44)

8 Kabalite Warriors with 1 blaster (79 points) against a riptide
18-24" : 7/18 wounds (0.39)
12-18" : 41/54 wounds (0.76)
0-12" 31/27 wounds (1.15)

I picked one of the examples you specifically cited as pointless because the warriors cannot cause reasonable damage to the target and have shown that they outdamage what space marines do across the board at any range bracket.  Similar comparisons could be run against the other units I listed as well and you'll still see the dark eldar warriors come out ahead of the marines (with or without the special weapons).

I think you guys are just seeing the grass as greener on the other side.  It's foolish to say our damage is weak and that you wish we had other troop options when their damage fares worse than ours.
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 19:35

Except that you purposefully ignored the example unit I actually gave - which was 5 marines with a Grav Cannon.
Back to top Go down
lessthanjeff
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 338
Join date : 2014-03-09
Location : Orlando, FL

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 19:38

I did not ignore it, I pointed out that it's not a unit people use. Check Dakka dakka as I pointed out and look at army lists. 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. I checked 12 different space marine armies on the front page and saw 0 with tacticals wielding grav cannons. I did see a lot of tacticals with plasma guns and melta guns which is what I ran the numbers for though.
Back to top Go down
The Shredder
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2013-04-11

PostSubject: Re: Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?   Wed Nov 11 2015, 20:10

lessthanjeff wrote:
I did not ignore it, I pointed out that it's not a unit people use.

Then why ask me for a troop unit to compare if you were just going to pick something different (presumably after running the math and realising how badly warriors were outclassed)?

lessthanjeff wrote:
 I checked 12 different space marine armies on the front page and saw 0 with tacticals wielding grav cannons.  I did see a lot of tacticals with plasma guns and melta guns which is what I ran the numbers for though.

Pretty sure our local marine player has used them, but whatever. I didn't realise troops weren't allowed unless several people on Dakkadakka can be shown to have used them. Neutral

In any case, don't SMs with Melta/plasma guns also tend to take combi-meltas/-plasmas on the sergeant?

Granted, it's only once per game, but it's still an important factor. I mean, marines with a plasmagun and combi-plasma at 12" do 1.19 wounds (plus whatever piddling amount their bolters do) to the riptide. And, if the unit doesn't last another turn, then you won't even notice the difference. Wink

lessthanjeff wrote:
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.

So then, unlike DE, the SM player will have more practical things to shoot at the riptide?

Bear in mind that, whilst other armies troops might be worse against MCs or such, they often don't need them to be good against them. Unlike us, they don't have the same weapons on their gunships as they do on their basic troops.

Furthermore, I never said that marines were better than warriors against a riptide. What I said was that warriors aren't good against riptides. And, I stand by that. I mean, you have 18 of the sods in rapid-fire range, and you're still barely doing a wound to the thing.

You could maybe argue that they're good by the standards of troops but, as above, other armies don't need their troops to bring down Riptides and such. They have Grav Centurions, Fire Dragons, D-weapons and such to do that. It would be like sending ground units to engage with a monster of Godzilla-proportions - that's what air-strikes and heavy artillery is for.

The fact that our gunships are all armed with pea-shooters is not a point in the warriors' favour.

My point regarding the Grav Cannon was that, whilst the SM player probably has better ways with dealing with Riptides anyway, he can *still* make his tactical marines far better at it than our warriors.
Back to top Go down
 
Are Kabalite Warriors worth taking?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 8Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

COMMORRAGH TACTICA

 :: Dark Eldar Tactics
-
Jump to: