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 : Previous  1, 2

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
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, 19:56

Thor665 wrote:
I'm paying more, and getting a less functional unit

Because Rapid Fire on fragile Troops SUCKS ***. If there's any value in Warriors is their weapon options, and those are indeed a lot more restricted than before.

If there is one meager thing the new Warriors have going for them it's the addition of the Venom to the Codex - which is in itself far superior to anything the Warriors could ever hope to achieve in the AI department. Derp.

_________________
...........
~ Drazhar, Master of Blades
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, 20:16

Thor665 wrote:
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.

You have to remember who we are talking about, this is GW, a company who can care less about the actual game they produce. to them every list should have a fully upgraded squad w/ sargie w/ special CCW in a pricey transport for "fluff". They care not for the effectiveness of one unit over the other. Heck, they have made that all too apearant with their several last codex's (even ours) So for two special rules for only 1 point, that is a steal. They dont care that 10 man warriors can only take 1 dark lance, or that we cant take two blaster anymore. They went for a standard template set down by the codex's of old. Special weapon, heavy at 10 man.

That being said Im still not saying the new are better. Infact I think the old are superior from a gaming persective, but what we gain is decent for the point upgrade per warrior, its just we lost alot of (competitive) options in the process
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, 20:24

Thor665 wrote:
So, for utility as Gunboats versus Bikers you see that as a big win?

The answer I should give is "I see it as exactly a big a win as the numbers say it is". But that would be insincere: I really love the Poisoned rule. Warriors have been my go-to unit ever since I cracked open a Third Edition starter set. I didn't care about playing them optimally, and I didn't know what statistics were. I split my 48 Warriors into 4 groups of 12 on foot with a Blaster, Shredder, and 2 Cannons each. All I knew was that I had to rely on my Splinter Cannons, because the rifles were little better than a lasgun. Flash forward a decade, and now I see that Rifles act like the old Cannon against Marines, and Cannons are now 36" and can get 6 shots?!? Oh frabjous day, caloo, callay!

So the weight of my judgment is influenced by that feeling I got when I first read the new Codex, contrasted with the cold, unfeeling numbers which say, "Splinter weapons didn't actually get much better against common foes, looks like you sold your options for cheap". The current, 5th edition me would analyze and value those options, while the old, 3rd Edition me didn't care much at all.

I cast my vote yesterday for New Warriors, and I'm going to stick with it. I would use the Old Raider Squad if they were the default today, but I would always dislike having a splinter weapon that's weak and limited. If the codex somehow had Old Raider squad and New Warriors as two different units...the choice would be hard in the limited Troops slots, but I would go with New. The joy in firing on Bikes, or Ogryns, or Daemons, or ANYTHING and not giving a damn is worth the points.

Outside of a Raider, more special weapons wins the contest. But the days of 12-man squads are gone for me, so I'm glad my pirate ships can carry a solid unit.

Thanks for running these Old vs. New, Thor, you've put both my reasoning capabilities and my nostalgia drive to the test!

_________________
Back to top Go down
Talos
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 161
Join date : 2011-09-15
Location : Malmö

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue May 15 2012, 23:52

CaptainBalroga wrote:


Thanks for running these Old vs. New, Thor, you've put both my reasoning capabilities and my nostalgia drive to the test!

+1

Back to top Go down
http://www.olasart.se
Inrit
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-18

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Wed May 16 2012, 17:27

Thor665 wrote:
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.

They can still sit in a cover by 10 with long range weapons, they can still be used in a Raider with blaster and now they can hunt MC (also thanks to the add of the Venom as a transport for them). There is nothing in the game they can't reach which is new and very valuable. Also, Power with pain is a very interesting rule in order to keep an objective as it's not very hard to find a way to get a pain token. So I think they can handle more tasks than before.
I agree with your other point, we are talking about the warriors and not about the new combos than could be done with them. Here is why many people choose the old ones I think, and it's totally understandable.
Back to top Go down
Nomic
Wych
avatar

Posts : 559
Join date : 2011-05-27
Location : Finland

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Wed May 16 2012, 19:14

I miss the ability to take 10man squads with 2 lances, but since I don't think our units are made to sit at objectives (too fragile and expensive), it's be better to compare the Raider squad and the current Warriors. Old ones had a cheaper blaster and could take a splinter cannon in 5man squads, the new ones have better range on blasters and can drive around in a Venom. Venoms are pretty awesome. I'll go with new. Also, poisoned weapons are pretty cool.

_________________
Tougher than wet kittens, with armour stonger than the dampest cardboard, we are coming for you!
Kabal of Drowned Hope/Cult of the Fatal Kiss/Dark Labyrinth Coven.
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5451
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Fri May 18 2012, 23:45

Inrit wrote:
They can still sit in a cover by 10 with long range weapons, they can still be used in a Raider with blaster and now they can hunt MC (also thanks to the add of the Venom as a transport for them). There is nothing in the game they can't reach which is new and very valuable. Also, Power with pain is a very interesting rule in order to keep an objective as it's not very hard to find a way to get a pain token. So I think they can handle more tasks than before.
I will say - your answer, outside of power from pain and poison weapons allowing them to hunt MCs, really shows nothing that the New Warriors can do that Old couldn't. Also, quite frankly, with 5 point Blasters and double dark lances, Old Warriors hunted MCs plenty - just with a different set of tools.

I don't think its fair to discuss the Venom, particularly - that isn't a unique Warrior tool which is why I segregated vehicles. Yes, the Venom is cool - but the Venom is cool with Wracks also, doesn't make the New Warriors inherently better because the Venom isn't inherent to them.

I'll also admit I discount FNP. Yeah, it makes them a bit more survivable but...meh, I go through entire games without ever getting FNP on a Warrior squad and hardly miss it. Usually I'm running them as anti-mech anyway because they're actually not very good at anti-infantry anymore - I thought the Old ones were better at that job via minimized Gunboat capabilities. So, mostly I find PfP to be misplaced and under utilized on Warriors and, when it is triggered, of negligible gain because all the powers on it are almost universally focused on helping assault troops (besides Fearless) and are really no help at all to Warriors.

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Painbiro
Kabalite Warrior


Posts : 110
Join date : 2011-09-12
Location : In your nightmares

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Sat May 19 2012, 02:23

Thor665 wrote:
Usually I'm running them as anti-mech anyway because they're actually not very good at anti-infantry anymore - I thought the Old ones were better at that job via minimized Gunboat capabilities.

Seriously? Warriors bad at AI? Tell that to the TWC squad I wiped out in a single shooting phase, or the Terminator squad that carked it as soon as I looked at them. There are about 2 units that I have shot at with Warriors that have survived - and both of them had 2+ saves and a helluvalotta Wounds to go round.

_________________
Dark Eldar 2k - 23 wins, 3 draw, 3 loss

Dark Eldar? Grimdark? What a silly idea. The Adventures of I-XV7-DM
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t3020p20-the-adventures-of-i-xv7-dm

Back after hiatus. For Commorragh!
Back to top Go down
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5451
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Sat May 19 2012, 03:09

I appreciate that you have had amazing luck with your Warriors - I would suggest, however, that those examples are a non-standard effect for them. I don't think poison shooting is bad, per se, and I also think Venoms are awesome AI - but Warriors are not the best platforms of either and do suffer on a pure value basis as far as killing infantry compared to the Warriors of Old.

Now, if you're saying "Warriors" and mean "Warriors in Venoms, and really, the Venoms are the prime AI" then I'll agree with you that they're good - but I don't mean "in Venoms" when I say "Warriors".

_________________


The Title Troupe! - Nom fellow posters for custom titles.
Back to top Go down
Painbiro
Kabalite Warrior


Posts : 110
Join date : 2011-09-12
Location : In your nightmares

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Sun May 20 2012, 09:36

No, they were Warrior squads in Raiders and my luck isn't that good. It's just that mine is better than my opponents. Laughing

_________________
Dark Eldar 2k - 23 wins, 3 draw, 3 loss

Dark Eldar? Grimdark? What a silly idea. The Adventures of I-XV7-DM
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t3020p20-the-adventures-of-i-xv7-dm

Back after hiatus. For Commorragh!
Back to top Go down
Enfernux
Wych
avatar

Posts : 823
Join date : 2012-05-31
Location : Hungary, Szeged

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Sat Jun 02 2012, 00:44

Wyches. There is that option to vote at Very Happy

_________________


Back to top Go down
http://www.facebook.com/enfer.nux?ref=tn_tnmn
Captain Mayhem
Hellion


Posts : 97
Join date : 2011-06-14
Location : Sechelt, BC

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Mon Jun 04 2012, 00:03

Only thing missing from warriors is the ability to take shardcarbines.

_________________
Why "mayhem"? because disfigurement, destruction and disorder is just so much fun.
Back to top Go down
Enfernux
Wych
avatar

Posts : 823
Join date : 2012-05-31
Location : Hungary, Szeged

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Mon Jun 04 2012, 09:58

the only thing missing from warriors is being cost effective. Old: 8pt, about the same effectiveness as in the current dex, cheeper.

_________________


Back to top Go down
http://www.facebook.com/enfer.nux?ref=tn_tnmn
Painbiro
Kabalite Warrior


Posts : 110
Join date : 2011-09-12
Location : In your nightmares

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Mon Jun 04 2012, 11:30

At least their basic guns aren't dysfunctional now.

_________________
Dark Eldar 2k - 23 wins, 3 draw, 3 loss

Dark Eldar? Grimdark? What a silly idea. The Adventures of I-XV7-DM
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t3020p20-the-adventures-of-i-xv7-dm

Back after hiatus. For Commorragh!
Back to top Go down
Captain Mayhem
Hellion


Posts : 97
Join date : 2011-06-14
Location : Sechelt, BC

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue Jun 05 2012, 01:38

Used to be 8 points then huh?

well, they definitely should have included the ability to take shardcarbines, then.

_________________
Why "mayhem"? because disfigurement, destruction and disorder is just so much fun.
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 Jun 05 2012, 21:50

Painbiro wrote:
At least their basic guns aren't dysfunctional now.

Say what? 24" is unfeasible and 12" is a death sentence. If not for the Blaster, I would never field Warriors.

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

Posts : 823
Join date : 2012-05-31
Location : Hungary, Szeged

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue Jun 05 2012, 21:58

@Painbro Not disfunctional? When was the last time you saw something fall fo rapid fire? Ok a squad of 20 warriors two cannons one shredder maybe can kill a 5 man Tac squad from 12". With just a few more points per model, 10 girls can do the same.

_________________


Back to top Go down
http://www.facebook.com/enfer.nux?ref=tn_tnmn
Cavash
Lord of the Chat
avatar

Posts : 3133
Join date : 2012-04-15
Location : Stuck in an air vent spying on plotters

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue Jun 05 2012, 22:07

I've had a ten man Warrior squad with Splinter Rifles and a Splinter cannon kill a combat squad before, and I reckon that if I had fired at a bigger target I would have done more damage. It's all down to whether the dice gods are smiling upon you or not.

_________________

Back to top Go down
Enfernux
Wych
avatar

Posts : 823
Join date : 2012-05-31
Location : Hungary, Szeged

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Tue Jun 05 2012, 22:41

you lucky little tormentor.

_________________


Back to top Go down
http://www.facebook.com/enfer.nux?ref=tn_tnmn
Thor665
Archon
avatar

Posts : 5451
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Venice, FL

PostSubject: Re: Old vs. New - Battle of the Warriors   Thu Jun 07 2012, 17:39

A new poll is going up today so I'm calling this one.

By the skin of their skinny skin teeth, Old prevails.

_________________


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 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2

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

GENERAL DARK ELDAR DISCUSSION

 :: Dark Eldar Discussion
-
Jump to: