Eldar nerfs

[no-name]

cooldown wouldn't fix anything, one good warp throw=dead unit, and that is totally NOT fair.

that's just dow2 for you. comboes can wipe units. it's not like warp throw is the only thing that can do this.

could also reduce the range of warp-throw, warlock is fairly tanky so he ought to be able to still pull off warp-throw comboes but it would make things a little risker for the warlock and so may balance things just right.

[Torpid]

cooldown wouldn't fix anything, one good warp throw=dead unit, and that is totally NOT fair.

Likewise increasing the cooldown of purgatus would NOT make it justifiable to have in t2, because the ability to change an engagement from an impossible engagement to a non-pyrrhicc victory is too strong for a t2 wargear.






Also my opinions with regard's to fish's points:
pathfinder gear - I think this is fine, I think rangers are ok for now.

guardian warlock leader - They are extremely effective indeed, but still having them doesn't allow guardians to solo other dedicated ranged squads, at least without hitting grenades or utilising shields. I think it's fine since the exarch's are fairly easy to kill too.

wraithguard warlock leader - I feel this should just be more of a concern with regards to 'warlock' leaders having that leap, I assume the dire avenger exarch has that leap too? I think either of them having it is ridiculous.

banshee exarch - Erm, banshees are fine at the moment, they scale so well and are so versatile, no banshee buffs please.

warp spider exarch - Spiders are meant to be glass cannons, therefore they are expensive, they have fantastic utility despite their great damage, don't feel they need buffs.

shimmer orb - I find this wargear a no brainer considering how powerful wraithlords are atm (I also find them a no brainer in most situations) and I guess the only time I wouldn't get this accessory is vs ork or eldar where I think targetting finders would be better for the bleed. Wouldn't like a shimmer orb buff.

rune armor - Yeah I don't like this thing. I understand that it's dodge-able but not really if you're doing other actives or if they combo it with mind war/shuriken suppression/kinetic pulse and all that other stuff. Basically it does as well to counter ranged units as the gravity blade counters melee, but of course doesn't sacrifice doombringer and gives you amazing energy and energy regen. Would people forgo it if it lacked the ability but was a bit cheaper?

cloak of shadows - I haven't really used this wargear much ever to be honest, I don't find it synergises well with the way I play eldar, I can't comment on it.

[Kvek]

Cloak of Shadows is pure awesomeness, First time you use it it's even more awesome.
Just cloak your units, wait till he comes then warp throw them to your infiltrated army
Or just leave the warlock a little bit behind shuriken, and when he is closer open fire, throw and insta force off.
It's great

[Dark Riku]

Regarding warp throw, the best solution imo is to make it's cool-down longer, in order to make the player make it count every time but not in every engagement. The point about it not being usable with providence could be off-set by buffing the warlocks speed while the ability is active.

There is no point in it not being "usable" with providence. wtf...
Providence provides you with invulnerability and being able to spam whatever ability you provided your wl with.

Regarding gates, if you're going to up the red cost then there's no need for an increased build-time. Also, there are readily available spotters for every army except eldar so dealing with gates seems to me more a case of being moer conservative with your map control. After winning an engagement instead of your whole army capping, have one unit capping while you have a spotter and back-up check the nearest nooks and crannies.

Rangers are as readily as the other detectors.

No it really isn't. 1 scout squad, shootas squad, tic squad, .. take some time to take out the gate making them not contribute in map control or combat.
AND the Eldar player can just pop out with his stuff and wipe your shit.

cooldown wouldn't fix anything, one good warp throw=dead unit, and that is totally NOT fair.

that's just dow2 for you. comboes can wipe units. it's not like warp throw is the only thing that can do this.

Except that other combos are way harder to pull of or/and are not T2.

wraithguard warlock leader - I feel this should just be more of a concern with regards to 'warlock' leaders having that leap, I assume the dire avenger exarch has that leap too? I think either of them having it is ridiculous.

Yes they do.. Did you not read my post? -.-
And yes this should be removed.

[no-name]

rune armor - Would people forgo it if it lacked the ability but was a bit cheaper?

No, rune armour in retail was pretty much mandatory if you wanted to use guide/doom or guide/stones. just not enough energy otherwise.

The change to rune armour/runes of reaping surprised me the most in elite tbh, they synergised well in the farseer builds. if you wanted fortune and doom, you got runes for the energy boost. the energy drain was really useful as well, the warlock has it so i don't see why they would think it's 'balanced' to remove it from the farseer. especially when it's far easier to force the farseer into retreat than it is the warlock.

There is no point in it not being "usable" with providence. wtf...
Providence provides you with invulnerability and being able to spam whatever ability you provided your wl with.

right, the alternative to warp-throw for spam is the blade of kurnous. you need to be in melee range to hit with that though which is why i suggested that a speed boost once providence activates would off-set the loss of spamming warp-throw, a bit. the warlock with providence will be beastly either way only this way he'll have to disrupt by chasing and using the one warp throw he will have on the most valuable/important target.

Rangers are as readily as the other detectors.

No it really isn't. 1 scout squad, shootas squad, tic squad, .. take some time to take out the gate making them not contribute in map control or combat.
AND the Eldar player can just pop out with his stuff and wipe your shit.

no they aren't. a chaos champion on tics is a far better detector option than rangers will ever be and will always be around because you will always want tic squads or scouts or ork nobs etc. The time it takes to destroy a gate is negligible, with the xp boost you get it's like going prize hunting. Getting wiped by ambushing shee's through a web-way is just stupidity acting out. You only ever get close enough to the web-way to risk something like that if you don't have a spotter, so stop doing that. Bring a tic squad along and just nuke the gate.
You're right that time hunting gates takes time away from capping, what is wrong with this? You will still have a map control advantage if you're winning your battles. All this means is that you will have to be more methodical in your play-style rather than instant-smash and grab domination.

[Torpid]

I read this whole thread yesterday but couldn't then be bothered to respond.

[Dark Riku]

no they aren't. a chaos champion on tics is a far better detector option than rangers will ever be and will always be around because you will always want tic squads or scouts or ork nobs etc. The time it takes to destroy a gate is negligible, with the xp boost you get it's like going prize hunting. Getting wiped by ambushing shee's through a web-way is just stupidity acting out. You only ever get close enough to the web-way to risk something like that if you don't have a spotter, so stop doing that. Bring a tic squad along and just nuke the gate.
You're right that time hunting gates takes time away from capping, what is wrong with this? You will still have a map control advantage if you're winning your battles. All this means is that you will have to be more methodical in your play-style rather than instant-smash and grab domination.

Your post is just infuriating me beyond imagination.

1 Yes, the ARE. Rangers are the best detectors in the game.
Not only do they detect further than all other detectors but they also provide you with A LOT of SNIPER dps AND a knockback ability across the map.
Don't even get me started once you upgrade them.

2. Negligible time? Have you ever taken down a gayt with only one detector?
It take a shit ton of time.

3 Stupidity acting out? I guess every freaking player is batshit retarded then.

4 Stop capping and running around the map without having a detector nearby because of the POSSIBILITY of a gayt nearby?! You can say gg right there then for having no map control whatsoever since you are capping with 2 squads all the time and buy way too many detectors!!

5 What's wrong with slowing down the map control your opponent should be getting on an already fast race?! Do I need to answer this one? -.-

6 That's kinda the whole idea in dow2. Force off opponent. Grab some of the map before he gets out of base again. O wait, did one of my capping units just instantly died because the enemy just teleported his army across the whole map to my retreat path in a second?

[Raffa]

no they aren't. a chaos champion on tics is a far better detector option than rangers will ever be and will always be around because you will always want tic squads or scouts or ork nobs etc. The time it takes to destroy a gate is negligible, with the xp boost you get it's like going prize hunting. Getting wiped by ambushing shee's through a web-way is just stupidity acting out. You only ever get close enough to the web-way to risk something like that if you don't have a spotter, so stop doing that. Bring a tic squad along and just nuke the gate.
You're right that time hunting gates takes time away from capping, what is wrong with this? You will still have a map control advantage if you're winning your battles. All this means is that you will have to be more methodical in your play-style rather than instant-smash and grab domination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEOpX8tmiUI

[Codex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEOpX8tmiUI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvEFeV92h6A

Thank you for your amazingly insightful contribution, Raffa. So glad you did that.

There's no need to be a prat and no need to go hurrdurr look I made a comparison between you and a retarded horse! Hodor. You have been warned.

P.S. Yes I made a comparison between you and Bill O'Reilly. More than one can play at that game.

[no-name]

1 Yes, the ARE. Rangers are the best detectors in the game.
Not only do they detect further than all other detectors but they also provide you with A LOT of SNIPER dps AND a knockback ability across the map.
Don't even get me started once you upgrade them.

I'm not talking about quality of detector. I'm well aware of how useful rangers can be. I'm talking about the ubiquity of the detectors. Spotters for all races bar eldar are easy to get and come in numerous numbers. Anyway, this is getting off-track, all I was trying to say initially was that most races in-game have more than adequate means of spotting gates and dealing with them. Meaning, imo, that dealing with gates requires primarily a change in play-style.

2. Negligible time? Have you ever taken down a gayt with only one detector?
It take a shit ton of time.

this is fiddling over pea-nuts. the latest patch increased gate health because apparently that off-sets the longer time it takes to make them and the small increase in cost. Thing is, using gates is a bit more of a nuisance now but the way eldar use them remains the same so that change really, didn't do anything useful. So do a 180 and decrease the health-pool again. Once a gate is discovered it's not going to stay standing because of it's health-pool anyway. So this could be a decent way of balancing it, make them fragile enough for a single spotter to destroy in good time.

3 Stupidity acting out? I guess every freaking player is batshit retarded then.

If every player is walking right up to the base of the gate and then shooting it? then yes, batshit retarded, if you are worried about shee's coming out. Use your spotters. If anything comes out, you have range and just blast it.

4 Stop capping and running around the map without having a detector nearby because of the POSSIBILITY of a gayt nearby?! You can say gg right there then for having no map control whatsoever since you are capping with 2 squads all the time and buy way too many detectors!!

stop bull-shitting and exaggerating. You know how map control works in most games. one unit caps most of the map while the rest butts heads with the enemy, the unit doing the capping usually has a spotter option as well. So make gates weak enough to handle a gate by themselves and it's not an issue anymore. Also, having a couple units check a corner while the thord of the 4 units available on average caps will not lose you the game or even lose you map-control. What it does is slow the game down a little so you can't dominate quite as badly. This isn't a bad thing. Especially with eldar since one wrong engagement can leave them smashed permanently due to the whole glass-canon angle.

5 What's wrong with slowing down the map control your opponent should be getting on an already fast race?! Do I need to answer this one? -.-

Increasing price would slow it down early game sure, I reckon making gates manageable for single spotters is a better option though. Because if you make gates mildly expensive, and then have players learn to use their spotters properly then you will end up with a game where gates are used solely to gen-bash, a one trick pony type of thing. After which you wouldn't bother using red on gates, save it up for storm or whatever. If this happens, people will still be qq'ing about how unfair it is that eldar have this ability to fuck your gens up. Despite the fact that a unit with flamers can wipe a gen farm faster than anything eldar can manage.

6 That's kinda the whole idea in dow2. Force off opponent. Grab some of the map before he gets out of base again. O wait, did one of my capping units just instantly died because the enemy just teleported his army across the whole map to my retreat path in a second?

[/quote]
This following point is important, read carefully. Gates don't stop you from getting majority map control if you play more conservatively, what they do is punish you for over-reaching and trying to grab your opponents naturals without a care for what could be coming up behind you. You can have the majority of the map under your control even if the enemy has gates because moving your army between middle points and your naturals is fairly quick. If you get greedy and try to grab the enemy naturals though, then you have a shit long trek back to your natural where the eldar will be de-capping. It's a play-style difference.

[Asmon]

Oh noes, I have made a successful combo and I am rewarded for it. What is this sorcery?

*bzzzth*

[Dark Riku]

So let us try this one more time for shits and giggles.

1. "Easy" to get?
IG: 30/40 power
Eldar: 30power
SM,Chaos,Orks, Nids: 25 power
I don't see how the others are "easier" to get.

1.5 Numerous?
SM:Sarges aren't standard upgrades. 1 maybe 2 scout sarges on the field.
Chaos: What if I told you people don't want to get AC's cuz of upkeep and are more cost effective without them with proper micro? 1 maybe 2 AC's are fairly common.
Orks: Yeah dual big shootas is a common build. But that still only gives you 2 detectors. If you wish to get 2 nobs so early for 50 power..
Nids: Warriors are pretty standard for your build unless you are HT. Other detector is venom brood which you get for the AV or ranged synapse. Not to detect. So unless you get a vehicle this isn't even a valid option. Which leaves them with 1 detector squad.
IG: Catachans/spotters. Seriously, how often are they on the field together?

2.

this is fiddling over pea-nuts. the latest patch increased gate health because apparently that off-sets the longer time it takes to make them and the small increase in cost. Thing is, using gates is a bit more of a nuisance now but the way eldar use them remains the same so that change really, didn't do anything useful. So do a 180 and decrease the health-pool again. Once a gate is discovered it's not going to stay standing because of it's health-pool anyway. So this could be a decent way of balancing it, make them fragile enough for a single spotter to destroy in good time.

Where do you get this info from? Health is 450. Like it has since retail...
You must play the game a lot...
Small increase in cost? The fuck you talking about? They cost 50 red.
Again, with "normal" dmg types 450 building armor takes quite some freaking time.

3 I never mentioned walking up to the base with a ranged unit.
You don't fucking even know the gayts are there in the first place!
And even if you go with a force to the gayt. The whole Eldar army can just pop out and kill your shit. And yes this happened to a lot of players better than you.
And how exactly is a spotter unit magically going to stop banshees popping out?
Spotters will use their useful anti-non existent shell??
Warriors will leap into their deaths vs shees power melee?
...?

4. I wish you'd take your own advice and stop bullshitting yourself.
No that's not how normal games work, normal 1v1's consist of capping around the map with all your units after a fight is won. Or playing the guerrilla warfare.
Make gayts weak. Ok. But atm they freaking aren't at all.
Slowing your enemy down without even being there IS bad. Mind boggling...

5 Again, Great if changed! But for now they aren't. So stop arguing like they only have 100 health already. And they should cost 75red.
So increasing the red cost is bad cuz it will limit its use for "only" genbashing?
Newsflash: It can be used for that already for a cheaper price.

6 This following point is important, read carefully.
Gayts do stop you from getting map control because you need to spend the time and units to hunt them down.

6.5 Punishing for overreaching?
Gayts placed in your retreat path on your natural vp isn't exactly overextending.
Yet happens. 3 caps are possible when you beat the crap out of your opponent.
Yet not vs Eldar Gayts. This is not ok at all.

[Black Relic]

Would it be possible to restrict the number of gates on a player? say 3? and like i said before increase the red cost per webway gate? going up an interval of 25 and starting at 65 or something? And still have a cooldown time? say 20 seconds?

[Torpid]

Would it be possible to restrict the number of gates on a player? say 3? and like i said before increase the red cost per webway gate? going up an interval of 25 and starting at 65 or something? And still have a cooldown time? say 20 seconds?

Can we first establish why my solution fails please.

[crazyman64335]

Would it be possible to restrict the number of gates on a player? say 3? and like i said before increase the red cost per webway gate? going up an interval of 25 and starting at 65 or something? And still have a cooldown time? say 20 seconds?

they have a cooldown time, and it really doesn't matter if you put a limit on them or not. 1 gate can completely ruin the game for a player who's unsuspecting.

[Torpid]

they have a cooldown time, and it really doesn't matter if you put a limit on them or not. 1 gate can completely ruin the game for a player who's unsuspecting.

You mean 2 and they don't have a cooldown, or if they do it is extremely negligible as I've seen someone put 3 up in the same vicinity simultaneously.

Regardless capping them would be silly, they are meant to be used strategically, I don't like capping shit for no reason, we shouldn't cap the number of wraithguards that one may build, or sniper scouts just because it prevents cheese. Ultimately if the unit is well balanced enough it doesn't need to be capped (obv sub-heroes and uber/semi-uber units need caps). The same applies to webways, if the game persists long enough for you to accumulate sufficient red for multiple webways AND your foe refuses to destroy them then fine you should be allowed multiple webways. The issue is simply that webways are undervalued in their cost at the moment leading to you being allowed to get too many.

I think through the Riku-Name exchange we have established that webway gates are extremely effective for 50 red. Originally I proposed that we boost their red cost to 75, revert previous exp/build time changes and add a minute long cooldown to the global, just to prevent spamming, which certainly can happen in the late game and is silly. Is this a good idea, or do you think this is a bad idea, why?

[Nuclear Arbitor]

so can a nuke

[Dark Riku]

so can a nuke

What can a nuke also do?
Change the outcome of a game?
Cuz if that's what you are referring too.... 100red T1 vs 500red T3
And it's fine that they have the same impact? Kay

[no-name]

So let us try this one more time for shits and giggles.

1. "Easy" to get?
IG: 30/40 power
Eldar: 30power
SM,Chaos,Orks, Nids: 25 power
I don't see how the others are "easier" to get.

They are more common is what i mean, a chaos player will almost always have a tic squad around and will almost always have a champ on the squad to prevent squad wipe if not detection. Anyhow, could make the leaders cheaper as well.

1.5 Numerous?
SM:Sarges aren't standard upgrades. 1 maybe 2 scout sarges on the field.
Chaos: What if I told you people don't want to get AC's cuz of upkeep and are more cost effective without them with proper micro? 1 maybe 2 AC's are fairly common.
Orks: Yeah dual big shootas is a common build. But that still only gives you 2 detectors. If you wish to get 2 nobs so early for 50 power..
Nids: Warriors are pretty standard for your build unless you are HT. Other detector is venom brood which you get for the AV or ranged synapse. Not to detect. So unless you get a vehicle this isn't even a valid option. Which leaves them with 1 detector squad.
IG: Catachans/spotters. Seriously, how often are they on the field together?

So there's inconvenience involved. ok. i don't always want rangers on the field either but against some opponents i just plain have to get them and deal with the enemy shenanigans.

2.

this is fiddling over pea-nuts. the latest patch increased gate health because apparently that off-sets the longer time it takes to make them and the small increase in cost. Thing is, using gates is a bit more of a nuisance now but the way eldar use them remains the same so that change really, didn't do anything useful. So do a 180 and decrease the health-pool again. Once a gate is discovered it's not going to stay standing because of it's health-pool anyway. So this could be a decent way of balancing it, make them fragile enough for a single spotter to destroy in good time.

Where do you get this info from? Health is 450. Like it has since retail...
You must play the game a lot...
Small increase in cost? The fuck you talking about? They cost 50 red.
Again, with "normal" dmg types 450 building armor takes quite some freaking time.

gate cost used to be 35 red. I don't recall now where i heard that gates got a health increase so maybe i am wrong there. Anyway, if you think it takes too long to destroy gates then give a suggestion. how much health should gates have to make them manageable for a single spotter?

3 I never mentioned walking up to the base with a ranged unit.
You don't fucking even know the gayts are there in the first place!
And even if you go with a force to the gayt. The whole Eldar army can just pop out and kill your shit. And yes this happened to a lot of players better than you.
And how exactly is a spotter unit magically going to stop banshees popping out?
Spotters will use their useful anti-non existent shell??
Warriors will leap into their deaths vs shees power melee?
...?

I would think it's obvious. A spotter would stop you walking into the gate. A spotter would spot the gate....i don't even know why you're asking all those questions. They are a non-issue if you bothered to keep your spotter around.

4. I wish you'd take your own advice and stop bullshitting yourself.
No that's not how normal games work, normal 1v1's consist of capping around the map with all your units after a fight is won.

so change your play-style. be aware of how much red the enemy might have. early game you can cap all you like, just as you've always done, once the enemy has 100 red though you'll need to be more cautious.

Slowing your enemy down without even being there IS bad. Mind boggling...

why is it bad? it's a tactic same as any other and fits eldar to a T. Notice the gates 'slow you down', you are still at the advantage over the eldar player, you only lose the advantage if you ignore the gates once they become apparent and it is very, very easy to tell when there's a gate around. Also, as soon as you see an eldar capping somewhere on the map un-usual you ought to have a good idea of where the gate is already.

5 Again, Great if changed! But for now they aren't. So stop arguing like they only have 100 health already. And they should cost 75red.
So increasing the red cost is bad cuz it will limit its use for "only" genbashing?
Newsflash: It can be used for that already for a cheaper price.

Ok? I don't want gate use to be reduced to a one trick pony of gen-bashing a couple times a game. That is all I'm trying to say, it will make the game-play worse imo. Upping the cost to 75 red will do that. Because 150red is significant and because it really isn't difficult to destroy a gate if a player actually bothers to look for it once he knows it exists so it's guaranteed to die. You can't keep spending 75 red on gates.

6 This following point is important, read carefully.
Gayts do stop you from getting map control because you need to spend the time and units to hunt them down.

total map control. not majority map control. because the distance between your naturals and the middle resource points isn't far, you can shift between them quickly if need be.

6.5 Punishing for overreaching?
Gayts placed in your retreat path on your natural vp isn't exactly overextending.
Yet happens. 3 caps are possible when you beat the crap out of your opponent.
Yet not vs Eldar Gayts. This is not ok at all.

[/quote]
gates taking a longer time to build ought to help with the retreat path shenanigans.
"This is not ok at all" - Why? you are still winning, so what if an eldar decides to invest in gates and prevent a 3-cap. Gives the eldar a bit of time to rally and maybe make a come-back and this is a bad thing, why? If you are the better player you will still win most of the time.

[no-name]

I think through the Riku-Name exchange we have established that webway gates are extremely effective for 50 red. Originally I proposed that we boost their red cost to 75, revert previous exp/build time changes and add a minute long cooldown to the global, just to prevent spamming, which certainly can happen in the late game and is silly. Is this a good idea, or do you think this is a bad idea, why?

Well, it would work anyway. I think game-play would be more interesting if the gates were easier to deal with rather than making them rarer but that's just my 2cents.

[Codex]

2. Gate cost used to be 35 red? I don't think it was ever that low, I thought it was always around the 50 to 75 mark. If anything gates had received a small cost decrease because they were not seen at all for a while in retail.

3. Okay, so you've spotted it, then what? Camp it out until it's safe to destroy it? Go back to map control? Unless you destroy it quickly, which takes time.

So, how much hp should it have for a single spotter to destroy? Well, let's consider... say scouts with sergeant, for the sake of argument.

They do 7.58 piercing dps per bolter.
http://www.dawnofwar.info/index.php?pag ... cout_squad
IIRC Gates are building light, applying a 50% modifier to piercing_pvp.
http://dow.wikia.com/wiki/Retribution/Damage_types

So all in all, the serg scout squad does 15.16 dps to a gate.

Which means a lone scout squad takes 30 seconds to take it out.

If you made it fragile enough such that a lone scout squad could take it out in a reasonable amount of time, so let's say, 15 seconds or less, then the gate would have 225 hp or less. Probably 200 or less. (and I would argue that 15 seconds in a lot).

And herein lies the problem. If you give it 200 or less building light hp, then just a scout squad and a tac would destroy it in 5.4 seconds. Let alone if the tac had a flamer. Let alone if it was late T1, or T2, or T3. The difference is, unlike everything else in the game, gates don't scale, and their initially large health pool is nothing in the latter portions of the game.

Making something possible to be destroyed by some of the worst anti-building units in the game, let alone some of the worst direct combat units in terms of dps, then you're going to find that gates evaporate.

[crazyman64335]

so can a nuke

What can a nuke also do?
Change the outcome of a game?
Cuz if that's what you are referring too.... 100red T1 vs 500red T3
And it's fine that they have the same impact? Kay

hmm this confirms it

WE NEED TO MAKE NUKES 100 RED AND AVAILABLE IN T1

[no-name]

2. Gate cost used to be 35 red? I don't think it was ever that low, I thought it was always around the 50 to 75 mark. If anything gates had received a small cost decrease because they were not seen at all for a while in retail.

hum, well i don't know where i got this from then. sorry.

And herein lies the problem. If you give it 200 or less building light hp, then just a scout squad and a tac would destroy it in 5.4 seconds. Let alone if the tac had a flamer. Let alone if it was late T1, or T2, or T3. The difference is, unlike everything else in the game, gates don't scale, and their initially large health pool is nothing in the latter portions of the game.

Making something possible to be destroyed by some of the worst anti-building units in the game, let alone some of the worst direct combat units in terms of dps, then you're going to find that gates evaporate.

I don't really have a problem with gates evaporating. Why not? Their primary defense has always been the cloak, it's why they were very rarely used as warlock and spider in retail before the change. The point of gates is to surprise and ambush. So just go with that to the hilt, make them fragile as all hell but because they are cheap still usable. If they evaporate then you can't have double wraithguard popping out with shees either because it takes something like a second for each squad to emerge solving that issue that people have with it. Balancing it this way will preseve eldar style of play imo which is why i am for it.

[Lulgrim]

The difference is, unlike everything else in the game, gates don't scale, and their initially large health pool is nothing in the latter portions of the game.

They can be made to scale on T2/T3 or upgrades, idk if that is necessary though.

[Nuclear Arbitor]

i actually meant to encompass all damage globals such as dark flames. clearly i wasn't obvious enough though.

i don't think it really is. worst case scenario you make them gain 100hp or so with each tier. it really is the invisibility that makes gates work; both with the gates staying alive and with their ambush effectiveness.

[Lost Son of Nikhel]

i actually meant to encompass all damage globals such as dark flames. clearly i wasn't obvious enough though.

i don't think it really is. worst case scenario you make them gain 100hp or so with each tier. it really is the invisibility that makes gates work; both with the gates staying alive and with their ambush effectiveness.

In which way Eldar Webgates don't scale well through Tiers?

Because in later Tiers the armies have AV/higher dps/explosive damage to destroy earlier the gates? Well, in Elite their HP haven't been their primary defense, but the permanent stealth.

And except some armies, like Tyrannids or Orks, which adquires new squads with detection in T2/T3, the rest of the armies have to rely in their T1 detection squads, which usually are with the rest of the army and no investigating the terrain looking for the gates.

[Dark Riku]

They are more common is what i mean, a chaos player will almost always have a tic squad around and will almost always have a champ on the squad to prevent squad wipe if not detection. Anyhow, could make the leaders cheaper as well.

You reply to my post as if you didn't even read it.
You don't always want those squad leaders!
And no, making the detectors cheaper is a bad idea.

So there's inconvenience involved. ok. i don't always want rangers on the field either but against some opponents i just plain have to get them and deal with the enemy shenanigans.

Rangers are never a bad addition and you get them vs cloaking heroes.
That's not the same as vs gayts.

gate cost used to be 35 red. I don't recall now where i heard that gates got a health increase so maybe i am wrong there.

So I very much dislike people who are trying to argue about something when they have absolutely no clue. Do some research before posting!

I would think it's obvious. A spotter would stop you walking into the gate. A spotter would spot the gate....i don't even know why you're asking all those questions. They are a non-issue if you bothered to keep your spotter around.

Ok, let me repeat myself again... Detectors don't magically stop the Eldar from using the unload ability on the gayt. And again: detectors aren't everywhere!

Slowing your enemy down without even being there IS bad. Mind boggling...

why is it bad? it's a tactic same as any other and fits eldar to a T. Notice the gates 'slow you down', you are still at the advantage over the eldar player, you only lose the advantage if you ignore the gates once they become apparent and it is very, very easy to tell when there's a gate around. Also, as soon as you see an eldar capping somewhere on the map un-usual you ought to have a good idea of where the gate is already.

I thought we established this one by now... It doesn't "just" slow you down.
It can force you to a complete stop. Since the Eldar can just pop out anywhere he wants. Retreating means nothing to the Eldar since he can pop out anywhere on the map where there is a gayt. Not needing to walk all that distance.

Well this one is easy:

Ok? I don't want gate use to be reduced to a one trick pony of gen-bashing a couple times a game. That is all I'm trying to say, it will make the game-play worse imo. Upping the cost to 75 red will do that. Because 150red is significant and because it really isn't difficult to destroy a gate if a player actually bothers to look for it once he knows it exists so it's guaranteed to die. You can't keep spending 75 red on gates.

So increasing the red cost is bad cuz it will limit its use for "only" genbashing?
Newsflash: It can be used for that already for a cheaper price.

total map control. not majority map control. because the distance between your naturals and the middle resource points isn't far, you can shift between them quickly if need be.

Don't even know what you are trying to say here.

gates taking a longer time to build ought to help with the retreat path shenanigans. "This is not ok at all" - Why? you are still winning, so what if an eldar decides to invest in gates and prevent a 3-cap. Gives the eldar a bit of time to rally and maybe make a come-back and this is a bad thing, why? If you are the better player you will still win most of the time.

How does that help anything? Once the gayt is in place it's ready to go.

The Eldar opponent is automatically winning? Why and how?!
Eldar players don't use gayts when winning?

I like this sentence a lot: "If you are the better player you will still win most of the time." --> So the worse player can beat the better one just because he is using Eldar.

[Raffa]

+1 to what Riku said.

Some people really should learn about the game before posting.

[Nuclear Arbitor]

In which way Eldar Webgates don't scale well through Tiers?

Because in later Tiers the armies have AV/higher dps/explosive damage to destroy earlier the gates? Well, in Elite their HP haven't been their primary defense, but the permanent stealth.

And except some armies, like Tyrannids or Orks, which adquires new squads with detection in T2/T3, the rest of the armies have to rely in their T1 detection squads, which usually are with the rest of the army and no investigating the terrain looking for the gates.

no, they do scale fine. what i was saying is that i think reducing their health down to something that could reasonably be killed by t1 squads is ok. if it becomes an issue at higher tiers then boosting their health back to roughly what it is currently should be the maximum amount required.

[no-name]

You don't always want those squad leaders!

Rangers are never a bad addition and you get them vs cloaking heroes.

are you trying to be funny? squad leaders are never a bad addition either. they are not always necessary, people leave them out often in grenade tics but they are still useful.

And no, making the detectors cheaper is a bad idea.

Why do you think so?

Ok, let me repeat myself again... Detectors don't magically stop the Eldar from using the unload ability on the gayt. And again: detectors aren't everywhere!

So you keep telling me. Gates taking a while to build now and making them weak enough for single detectors to handle would mean if your army came across a gate they spotted, the eldar wouldn't be able to unload an army. Unless you're doing it wrong and don't use spotters. Do you complain like this about double tzeentch tics as well?

I thought we established this one by now... It doesn't "just" slow you down.
It can force you to a complete stop. Since the Eldar can just pop out anywhere he wants. Retreating means nothing to the Eldar since he can pop out anywhere on the map where there is a gayt. Not needing to walk all that distance.

you mean, 'force you to a complete stop when you already have majority map control'. Like i said before, the middle resource points and your naturals can easily be defended from gate attack, things only get tricky if you decide to push forward into your enemies naturals and leave your rear open.

I like this sentence a lot: "If you are the better player you will still win most of the time." --> So the worse player can beat the better one just because he is using Eldar.

no, the worse player can sometimes beat the better player because RNG, because the better player wasn't playing his best, or for any other combination of reasons. The worse player won't win solely because he's playing eldar, stop being childish.