HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Old vs. New?
Old Warriors knew how to bring the pain.
39%
 39% [ 15 ]
New Warriors, less spikes, better flavor.
42%
 42% [ 16 ]
Kabal rules all, I can't make a good call between them.
11%
 11% [ 4 ]
Warriors? I'm sorry, did I change my name to Wuss McWuss? I assault, like a man!...or a Wych, that too.
8%
 8% [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 38
 

AuthorMessage
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5484
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 00:09



Greetings and welcome to Battle 12 of Old vs. New.

Every army has that one unit - the backbone. The representative basic trooper against which all other units are measured, upon which most hard work is placed, and for which many people decide to love or hate the army.

Space Marines have the basic Tactical Marine.
Tyranids have the omnipresent Gaunt.
Imperial Guard have the Trooper.
Craftworld Eldar have...well, Dire Avengers if army builds are any judge.

But, look, the point is, Dark Eldar have the Warrior (or Kabalite Warrior, if you will). The rank and file killing machine, scoring unit, and meatsheild of the army.

This is a big one, who had the best basic troop choice?

Let's find out!

Also - just as a head's up. Back in the day the Warriors came as Warrior and Raider squads. Really, this works out functionally the same as our current Kabalite Warrior Squad as you can't take a Raider with them if you have 11+ in the unit. There are some minor tweaks and changes (like 10 man squads with 2 Dark Lances) but, for the purpose of this article I'm going to refer to the Old Warrior and Raider Squads as the single entity 'Old Warriors' because they really were the same thing just with some different build options.


Slot and Cost

As usual, the first basic question is - did they change the cost of the model, and is the model still in the same slot of the codex?

Both were Troop Slots.
The Warrior and Raider Squads of old cost 8 points each (+6 for a Sybarite)
The New Warriors cost 9 points each (+10 for a Sybarite)

That's a pretty easy one. Back then, just like now, the Warriors were used as platforms - you bought Warriors in order to get access to special weapons or vehicles. So, with that in mind, cheaper is *always* better for generic troops. Also, seriously, a 5 point increase in Sybarite cost? What do you want to bet we can't figure out why they did that?



Advantage? - Old!

Stats

This should be an easy one to compare. Did they take away or add to the stat line?

The Old Warrior
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
4 4 3 3 1 5 1 8 5+

The New Warrior
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
4 4 3 3 1 5 1 8 5+

The Old Sybarite
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
4 4 3 3 1 5 2 8 5+

The New Sybarite
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
4 4 3 3 1 5 2 9 5+

scratch

I guess +5 points = +1 Leadership? Meh. Other than that nothing has changed. Put me down for requesting we go back to 8 point warriors and 14 point Sybs Wink

Advantage? - Old!

Wargear

What good are stats without awesome weapons to use them with?

New

As usual, stats and cost should start coming into focus as you consider wargear.

We're all familiar with the Warrior loadouts;

1 in 5-20 may get a Blaster (awesome) or Shredder (not so awesome)
I'm still on record that this should have been a 1 in 5 option or something, it's pretty annoying as currently stands where you can get multiple Heavy weapons into a unit but only 1 assault weapon when our army is...wait for it...a fast moving assault army. Seriously now.

1 in 10 can get one of the big guns.
The Dark Lance is the signature weapon of our army and is loved, feared, and mocked in equal amounts.
The S.Cannon is a solid anti-infantry tool and is one of our better shooting options.

That's it for the boys.

The Syb has a slew of options as well.
He can opt for a CCW and pistol, nab a Phantasm Grenade Launcher for assaults, get an Aggie, Power Weapon, or Venom Blade to help in those assaults, take a Blast Pistol (certainly in contention as best pistol in the game...not that any pistols are really that world changing). He can also take Ghosteplate Armor which is...cool, though a little odd since he's not a Special character and the armor costs quite a bit considering it's not actually making him that much harder to kill with a generic knife...whatevs.


Old

So, they were cheaper across the board, clearly they have inferior special weapon options, yeah?

Yeah...not exactly.

For Blasters and Shredders the Old Warriors were basically 1 for a unit in a Raider, or 2 if on foot for taking them (meaning a foot squad of 20 could have...TWO. Y'know, so if you wanted an assault foot unit of Warriors you could get multiple assault guns to help them?)

These were also the magical 5 point Blasters of yore - that were basically exactly as good as the current ones at 1/3 of the cost.

An important thing to note is, a foot squad of 10 could still have 2 Blasters/Shredders, also a Raider squad could still do the 5 man with 1 Blaster build.

Dark Lances and S.Cannons were the SAME THING. You could have 1 in a Raider or 2 on a foot squad.

The Old Syb...look, he had access to the Armoury - so let's just say 'he wins' without me having to describe, yet again, all the options he had. Let me assure you he had more and better options than the New Guy. Basically he HAD all those options, plus about twenty others ranging from magic bullets to grenades that made people wet themselves in terror.


--------------------------------------

This seems so obvious it hurts my soul. Consider;

Current Sniper squad - 20 Warriors 2 Lances - or - 10 Warriors 1 Lance.
Old Sniper Squad - 20 Warriors 2 Lances - or - 10 Warriors...2 Lances.

Old Raider builds could be 5 Warriors, Blaster, S.Cannon.

Yeah, put that in your over priced New Warrior pipe and smoke it, those builds were awesome and really helped showcase the DE. We were small and fragile, but we really did pack a sickening amount of firepower into each and every unit, no matter how small it was.

Also, the Old units, while having more firepower and identical stats - cost less. So...yeah, what the hell? I'll admit that the poison guns are awfully nice but...THEY AREN'T THAT MUCH BETTER! Heck, we never had an issue with high toughness anyway because we had so much darklight.

This is a clear win in my mind.



Advantage? - Old!


Face to Face in Battle!

I think a face to face is a little odd here...mostly because neither unit is an assault unit, also with identical stats (and with Old being cheaper and having access to cheaper wargear so there will always be more of them/or have better gear) it seems awkward to bother.

Consider;


Old Assault Squad - 20 Warriors w. Syb. 2 Blasters, 2 S.Cannons, Aggie = 216 points


New Uber Assault Warrior Squad - 20 Warriors w. Syb 1 Blaster, 2 S.Cannons, Aggie (Blast Pistol if you want to tie for darklight assault gear) = 245 (260)

The only difference is one squad has +1 Leadership...but is getting a 30-45 point benefit, which means theoretically I should trim it down (If I drop the Blast Pistol, one S.Cannon, and 3 Warriors they cost 217...still costing more and vastly an inferior force, but at least close in points...that said, no one is going to be surprised at what wins the fight...are you?

There's no question (unless you're dumb) that the Old Sniper Squad was also better and cheaper for hurting vehicles.

There's no question you could go with minimized squads to spam vehicles better and cheaper with the Old Ones.


So let's just run a comparison versus MEQ and GEQ and see which Gunboat was better, yeah? Very Happy

Classic Gunboat Warrior Builds Shooting Stuff

Classic Old Warriors Rapid Fire stuff
The build would be 10 men, a S.Cannon (or a Dark Lance, though that was more of a sniper build) and a Blaster in a Raider (we'll ignore the Raider)

vs. MEQ = 1.18 kills from the rifles, .44 kills from the S.Cannon, .55 kills from the Blaster = 2.17 dead MEQ

vs. GEQ = 5.33 kills from the rifles, 1.77 kills from the S.Cannon, .55 kills from the Blaster = 7.65 dead GEQ

Value? The unit costs 95 points (not counting Raider)
So you're paying 43.77 per dead Marine and 12.41 for every dead Guardsman.


New Warriors Rapid Fire stuff
The build would be 10 men, a S.Cannon (or a Dark Lance, though that was more of a sniper build) and a Blaster in a Raider (we'll ignore the Raider)

vs. MEQ = 1.77 kills from the rifles, .66 kills from the S.Cannon, .55 kills from the Blaster = 2.98 dead MEQ

vs. GEQ = 5.33 kills from the rifles, 2 kills from the S.Cannon, .55 kills from the Blaster = 7.88 dead GEQ

Value? The unit costs 115 points (not counting Raider)
So you're paying 38.59 per dead Marine and 14.59 for every dead Guardsman.


====================================================

Okay, so let's consider our above info first. The Old Warriors are better value versus Guard (even with the S.Cannon shift from 4 shots to 6) and are close versus Marines, though the New ones do manage a nice uptick in value there due to the poison guns (and, again, the 4 to 6 shift in S.Cannons).

A bit of interesting numbers to consider, though I always knew I felt Max Gunboats had become a bit better.

That said...

Minimized Gunboats - New Can't even do them, Old does them well.
Sniper Squads - Old is clearly superior.
Large Assault Squads - Functionally they're identical...but Old does it for 30+ points cheaper while having better options and, probably, better shooting.

I can't see how outperforming Old in one part of one competition possibly hands the win to New.


Advantage? - Old!

=================================
=================================

So that's my breakdown.

I honestly thought this one was going to be tighter for me. Why? Because I ruddy love poisoned guns - I really thought those things were awesome in a bikini and offering free oil massages. But...they actually make only a moderate uptick in combat effectiveness...an uptick that arguably *isn't* justified by making Warriors cost 1 point more. Plus, cheaper special weapons and the ability to take more special and heavy weapons at any sort of level really makes the Old Warriors shine.

The Syb is another let down, though this one I expected. He's more expensive and though he at least provides a Ld uptick like any leader character should (and it was always odd they didn't back in the old dex) but...his options are mostly 'meh' for what the squad is supposed to be doing. He literally brings nothing to a shooting squad and...that's what Warriors are. What, you couldn't give him something to help shoot with? I'm pretty sure I've seen that sort of really odd situation somewhere else (*cough*AspectWarriors*cough*) and it seems to work there.

So, really, we have one of my pet loves - the Gunboat - becoming...maybe slightly better (well, at least at killing MEQ, though not being as efficient at killing GEQ) Also, if you look at the cost uptick - 10 points...10 points per Gunboat buys lots of stuff...lots of stuff. And theyre inferior at everything else.

So, for me, he Old Warriors are clearly the superior machines of war, poison bullets or no, they just brought more to the table.

That's my call - what's yours?

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Ruke
Wych
avatar

Posts : 731
Join date : 2012-02-18
Location : WayX

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 01:05

Why is this up already!? ZOMG! TOO MUCH OLD VS NEW! /headexplodes

Also, i think Boyz would be a better example than guardians imo

EDIT:

But to be honest, the old was probably much better in this instance. Although, I can think of a few ways the new outclass the old. The new get PfP, which, while it isn't a huge advantage for them, it is SOME. While the poison weapons may not be a drastic shift from the old ones, it does help SLIGHTLY vs high T creatures. And you keep saying that the old blaster is "basically the same but cheaper" but it was only a 12" weapon and those extra 6" is HUGE (and worth 10 points) in a DE army, especially when you factor movement into the equation. The new syb can also take a PGL, so if they are being assaulted, they at least get a bit of help from that. All things considered, I think 1 extra point for the new isn't a terrible deal.

_________________
No tears, please. It's a waste of good suffering.


Last edited by Ruke on Tue May 15 2012, 01:24; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5484
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 01:18

Eldar can't field Boyz.

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Ruke
Wych
avatar

Posts : 731
Join date : 2012-02-18
Location : WayX

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 01:25

XD

I mean use Ork Boyz instead of Eldar Guardians in your example, since Boyz are a staple unit, while the CWE staple unit isn't nearly as well defined.

_________________
No tears, please. It's a waste of good suffering.
Back to top Go down
CaptainBalroga
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 283
Join date : 2012-04-08
Location : Space is the place

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 03:10

I was always bothered by the Dark Eldar wielding those weak poisoned weapons. Supposedly it was to make the enemy suffer as they die, but it seems like they would prefer to wield a better weapon like a shuriken catapault to save their own skins instead. Now, the Warriors are the main utilizers of the Poisoned Shooting weaponry rule, and that puts a great weapon to level the playing field into their hands.

For example, Old vs. New Warriors against T5 3+ save, which I'm going to call Biker Equivalent. Not a terribly uncommon profile, right?

Old vs. BEQ = 0.59 kills from the rifles, 0.30 kills from the S.Cannon, 0.55 kills from the Blaster = 1.44 dead BEQ

New vs. BEQ = 1.77 kills from the rifles, 0.66 kills from the S.Cannon, 0.55 kills from the Blaster = 2.98 dead BEQ

So, you pay 65.97 points per dead bike with Old Warriors, but only 38.59 points with the New Warriors: the same as with MEQ, because all you care about now is the armor save!

For me, it's a proud nail being knocked flush- something that wasn't quite right, but now fits very well. I gladly pay another point per Warrior for that. I do wish we could get two Blasters per 5 models (like Marines). Two Blasters per Raider or a 20-man, four Blaster squad out of a Webway Portal would be pretty sweet!

_________________
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5484
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 04:12

So, for utility as Gunboats versus Bikers you see that as a big win?

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Ruke
Wych
avatar

Posts : 731
Join date : 2012-02-18
Location : WayX

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 05:19

Not necessarily a big win, as the old still has it, but the new are far from useless, and are easily worth the extra point per model.

I think this battle might be a bit closer than you called it. Although you definitely have a spot in your heart for the old unit. Wink

_________________
No tears, please. It's a waste of good suffering.
Back to top Go down
Evil Space Elves
Haemonculus Ancient
avatar

Posts : 3633
Join date : 2011-07-13
Location : Santa Cruz, ca

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 05:47

@Ruke wrote:
Not necessarily a big win, as the old still has it, but the new are far from useless, and are easily worth the extra point per model.

I think this battle might be a bit closer than you called it. Although you definitely have a spot in your heart for the old unit. Wink
I cast the "ride the fence" vote. Both are pretty boss in my book. The old min/max weapon options really made for a great utility unit, and the new sure know how to take down the big 'uns with poisoned weapons. With such a close call, I would (as always) side with the sexier models Twisted Evil

_________________

"Solutions are good, how many dark eldar archons can you find sitting in their throne rooms whining that they used to rule the universe? Exactly."  -The Burning Eye
Splintermind: The Dark Eldar Podcast
My Dark Eldar Project Log
Back to top Go down
The New AIDS
Hellion


Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-01-21
Location : Sunny Melbourne

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 07:27

I actually think they've changed roles. The new ones are way better at dealing with high toughness targets and anything with T4 or more (everyone anywhere forever).

The old ones packed more special weapons. But trueborn do that better. That's what they're for. I want my dudes in gunboats (or on foot chillin' with ducky sliscus), and they are superior at that.

Also the new ones look amazing and the old ones were lame.

_________________
"Oh, Sliscus, those gloves are amazing, where did you get them!?"

"Oh, these things? They're your sister's face."
Back to top Go down
tlronin
Wych


Posts : 815
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : The Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 08:05

I agree with 'the new aids'. I understand it's impossible to factor in all the variables into the equation, but in this old vs new I feel the trueborn are totally left out. We didn't have them in the old codex ofcourse, which makes it impossible to compare. But the synergy of the warriors in the new dex has shifted. So next to the trueborn, I also think they increased in points because the Wyches are troops now. Also has to do with synergy of the army IMHO.

But I dó wish the rule is: Take a blaster per 5 models. I agree that this would fit much better with our army and I doubt if this would be overpowered.

_________________
Archon of the kabal of The Bleeding Hand.
Member of local Dutch community: http://www.sweetlakesentinels.nl
Back to top Go down
Ruke
Wych
avatar

Posts : 731
Join date : 2012-02-18
Location : WayX

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 09:18

Good point about the trueborn.

Letting us have a special weapon per 5 models would totally be OP, since anything that could possibly let a army equal what a space marine army can bring to bear is OP.

Geeze... what rock have you been living under? XD (joking! i love you! please dont eat me babies!)

_________________
No tears, please. It's a waste of good suffering.
Back to top Go down
tlronin
Wych


Posts : 815
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : The Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 09:41

Dont worry, I only assault and pillage. You got me confused with that other guy. Razz

Edit: Lol, ok... the word I was trying to type has been replaced by 'assault', so let's just say 'assault women', which should make the forum happy. Wink

_________________
Archon of the kabal of The Bleeding Hand.
Member of local Dutch community: http://www.sweetlakesentinels.nl
Back to top Go down
The New AIDS
Hellion


Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-01-21
Location : Sunny Melbourne

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 09:45

Um...

No, assault women isn't an acceptable substitute.

Also the DE don't discriminate on gender man (unless you're a wych) didn't you read the codex?

_________________
"Oh, Sliscus, those gloves are amazing, where did you get them!?"

"Oh, these things? They're your sister's face."
Back to top Go down
tlronin
Wych


Posts : 815
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : The Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 10:12

scratch Ok, just to ensure further departure of the topic at hand; I was trying to write r.a.p.e. to make it clear. Joke is getting out of hand. clown

_________________
Archon of the kabal of The Bleeding Hand.
Member of local Dutch community: http://www.sweetlakesentinels.nl
Back to top Go down
The New AIDS
Hellion


Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-01-21
Location : Sunny Melbourne

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 11:28

Hey, can we please talk about why Grey Knights are bad as well. I feel that's the direction this thread really needs.









Please don't kill me Thor.

_________________
"Oh, Sliscus, those gloves are amazing, where did you get them!?"

"Oh, these things? They're your sister's face."
Back to top Go down
Inrit
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-18

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 11:35

The fact that blasters can now shoot until 18 inches and not only 12 is a huge progress IMO. Gunboats don't have to get so close anymore to be efficient.
I regrest a bit the unit of 10 warriors with dark lances which was amazing, but in a sense it didn't match with the army logic of speed and perpetual movement.
New ones for me as they can fit in more roles than the old.
Back to top Go down
tlronin
Wych


Posts : 815
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : The Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 11:40

@Inrit wrote:
The fact that blasters can now shoot until 18 inches and not only 12 is a huge progress IMO. Gunboats don't have to get so close anymore to be efficient.
I regrest a bit the unit of 10 warriors with dark lances which was amazing, but in a sense it didn't match with the army logic of speed and perpetual movement.
New ones for me as they can fit in more roles than the old.

I agree. It was strange how I ussually ended up with 10man strong snipersquads 2 DL's each in ruïns, to pop vehicles from afar. This felt so counter intuitive as to how DE should work.

Now I see alot of DE players take 5 warriors in Venoms with a blaster. Much more in line with DE's fluff.

_________________
Archon of the kabal of The Bleeding Hand.
Member of local Dutch community: http://www.sweetlakesentinels.nl
Back to top Go down
Shadows Revenge
Hierarch of Tactica
avatar

Posts : 2587
Join date : 2011-08-10
Location : Bmore

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 14:56

New warriors have alot going for them. PfP and poison are easily worth the 1 extra point, and they have a way better splinter cannon (more range and potentially more shots). Also since we are talking about warriors as a platform for special weapons, we have to remember they have access to the awesomesauce venom, which is a huge difference in the field.

The problem is the old warriors just did everything better (except surivive ofc) Multiple blaster, sniper teams, and the awesome terrorfex. Heck, I even sometimes took raider squads with 5 man 1 blaster 1 dark lance, jumped them out, and threw in a 10 man 2 splintercannon 1 blaster regular warrior squad (ol switcharu) and output more firepower than even the current gunboat, while still leaving me a semi-sniper team sitting in cover on an objective.

Old gets my vote.

_________________
Status:
Usurping Kabal leadership for his Patriarch

Current List:
First 2k GSC List
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5484
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 16:31

@Inrit wrote:
New ones for me as they can fit in more roles than the old.
Like what?

I also don't think it's functional to compare Trueborn here as they're an Elite option and are quite different to what Warriors do. Theoretically we could have Old Warriors with Trueborn or we could have New Warriors with Trueborn - I'd rather have Old than New. By this logic one could say the new Haem is better and therefore we should vote for New Warriors - to my mind that doesn't make sense which is why it wasn't part of the discussion.

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Raneth
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 467
Join date : 2011-06-12
Location : ridin' the Razor, cussin' at my Wyches

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 17:34

Poison got pwned. Glad to finally see it in writing.

Vote: OLD

_________________
...........
~ Drazhar, Master of Blades
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5484
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 17:48

I'm actually amazed that poison bullets and PfP (because *that's* so important to Warriors) is garnering them as many votes as they are when the other side is cheaper and has more weapon access - last I checked being affordable shooting machines is what Warriors did.

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Shadows Revenge
Hierarch of Tactica
avatar

Posts : 2587
Join date : 2011-08-10
Location : Bmore

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 18:09

While I admit poison is just alittle boost, you have to admit that PfP can potentially be a game changer with a gunboat style army. In theory (although we know in reality its different, but remember GW might as well playtest with theory when creating a codex) that warriors main job (originally) was to kill infantry with their shooting. With the access to poison ammunition now, they can now take down larger targets with ease. Now if they kill an MSU squad or a big baddie, then FNP might as well just double their survivability from most small arms fire. Sure FC and Fearless is almost useless, but I think that chance for FNP is a huge force multiplier even for warriors.

Now do I think New warriors are better? No, but I do see the reason for the 1 point increase. I mean come on, two special things for 1 point!!! thats a steal!!! Sadly the lack of weapons isnt... but come on, 100 points for 2 dark lances were broken, and we all know it.

_________________
Status:
Usurping Kabal leadership for his Patriarch

Current List:
First 2k GSC List
Back to top Go down
Raneth
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 467
Join date : 2011-06-12
Location : ridin' the Razor, cussin' at my Wyches

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 19:15

@Shadows Revenge wrote:
While I admit poison is just alittle boost, you have to admit that PfP can potentially be a game changer with a gunboat style army. In theory (although we know in reality its different, but remember GW might as well playtest with theory when creating a codex) that warriors main job (originally) was to kill infantry with their shooting. With the access to poison ammunition now, they can now take down larger targets with ease. Now if they kill an MSU squad or a big baddie, then FNP might as well just double their survivability from most small arms fire. Sure FC and Fearless is almost useless, but I think that chance for FNP is a huge force multiplier even for warriors.

Now do I think New warriors are better? No, but I do see the reason for the 1 point increase. I mean come on, two special things for 1 point!!! thats a steal!!! Sadly the lack of weapons isnt... but come on, 100 points for 2 dark lances were broken, and we all know it.

My Warriors' chances of ever garnering a Pain token are slim at best, and would be of little benefit due to their small squad size. When's the last time a Gunboat army did well in a tourny, anyway?

_________________
...........
~ Drazhar, Master of Blades
Back to top Go down
Ruke
Wych
avatar

Posts : 731
Join date : 2012-02-18
Location : WayX

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 19:40

I have sown the seeds of chaos...

My work here is done.

_________________
No tears, please. It's a waste of good suffering.
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5484
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 19:49

@Shadows Revenge wrote:
but I think that chance for FNP is a huge force multiplier even for warriors.
Eh...not sure I can go there with you. Just because they are tougher to kill doesn't make them a force multiplier, and it's a conditional effect.

Then to make them cost more, while restricting what benefit they could bring to the gameboard? Meh on that. I'm paying more, and getting a less functional unit and getting to pay more for it because if they kill a unit themselves then they become slightly tougher to kill. I'd rather have a cheaper unit that is better at killing outright in the first place.

And I'll happily say I don't think two lances at 100 was broken - otherwise I would have run lot more of them. I thought mini gunboats were "broken" or at least our best value.

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
 
Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next

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

GENERAL DARK ELDAR DISCUSSION

 :: Dark Eldar Discussion
-
Jump to: