Dawn of War Codex

Posted: **Sun 06 May, 2018 4:09 pm**

How about a nerf on DOT of the PC's Plague Bolter?
Also Blood Crusher charge could use a little nerf imo

Posted: **Sun 06 May, 2018 5:26 pm**

Rostam wrote:How about a nerf on DOT of the PC's Plague Bolter?

Why? That's like his thing. And it certainly isn't too powerful imo.

Rostam wrote:Also Blood Crusher charge could use a little nerf imo

Again why? BC is rather fine in Elite.

Posted: **Mon 07 May, 2018 3:33 am**

Maybe WW need an armor upgrade on T3? it's just dies too fast

Posted: **Mon 07 May, 2018 5:14 pm**

Some suggestions:

IG
-Spotters should either have their cds increased or get an energy bar, so they cannot use both mortar shots in quick succession. They're universally useful in nearly any combat situation and this would kinda bring them back in line with other cc-units.

Eldar
-Falcon seems to be too a good as an allrounder especially in comparison to other transport units and it's kinda cheap price. In 2.8, there are some nerfs incoming for it and we'll have to see how they turn out but imo a further decrease for it's chase and av ability might be reasonable.
-Rangers having a very useful cc ability as snipers seemed to be out of place since forever(basically since the first big Eldar buffs in 2009). I don't know though how it can be replaced. Considering all the stuff Eldar have for quite easily punish any delayed retreat, it seems just too much.

SM
-A more or less experimental suggestion for ASM is to give them use to their blind grenade on T1. It's a heavily underused ability which may be because of it is locked behind a 20 energy upgrade(which no one will get for blind nade) and drains energy which could be otherwise used for a jump/melta. There too different apporaches here: Either letting them start with this ability or bring them in line with Raptors(400/40) and give it as an upgrade(50/10). Being very similar to the Spotters smoke nade the blind nade itself certainly would fit well into T1 and it would also be balanced by it's energy drain and the often very wacky way squads in melee react to an order for a nade throw.

Posted: **Mon 07 May, 2018 5:24 pm**

Reg9678 wrote:Some suggestions:

Eldar
-Falcon seems to be too a good as an allrounder especially in comparison to other transport units and it's kinda cheap price. In 2.8, there are some nerfs incoming for it and we'll have to see how they turn out but imo a further decrease for it's chase and av ability might be reasonable.

Falcon is the most expensive transport in the game, second most fragile in T2 next to the Wartrukk, and is the slowest at speed 7. Its late game scaling potential has already been nerfed with the shield losing a third of its effectiveness.

Reg9678 wrote:-Rangers having a very useful cc ability as snipers seemed to be out of place since forever(basically since the first big Eldar buffs in 2009). I don't know though how it can be replaced. Considering all the stuff Eldar have for quite easily punish any delayed retreat, it seems just too much.

Kinetic pulse is the only useful thing Rangers can do besides detect. They have next to no damage output, horrible scaling, and are an economic and micro investment tax that Eldar have to deal with whenever another faction deploys stealth. There's a reason Eldar is viewed as being one of the most vulnerable to stealth play.

Posted: **Mon 07 May, 2018 6:27 pm**

Falcon: 500hp + 350hp for 100/30 (also scales with levels since hp increase is tied to energy)
Razorback: 400hp + 200hp for 70/20
Chimera: 500hp no hp upgrade
Wartrukk: 350hp + 200hp for 50/20

Falcon is so good players are getting them about half the time they hit T2 and it marginalises DR, FD and WS imo.

ASM can´t be 400/40 if Raptors are 400/40 since they have +150hp, almost the same melee dps and have a jump that is 10e cheaper. I agree about the blind grenade, it could use some tweaks to increase its utility.

Spotters with no energy bar is probably an oversight that everyone just got used to. Is there any other unit that can fire off abilities with so few restrictions?

Posted: **Mon 07 May, 2018 7:12 pm**

Antandron wrote:Falcon: 500hp + 350hp for 100/30 (also scales with levels since hp increase is tied to energy)
Razorback: 400hp + 200hp for 70/20
Chimera: 500hp no hp upgrade
Wartrukk: 350hp + 200hp for 50/20

Yes. Hence why I said the Falcon was the second most fragile transport in T2. The shield is a T3 upgrade.

Antandron wrote:Falcon is so good players are getting them about half the time they hit T2 and it marginalises DR, FD and WS imo.

No, people are buying a Falcon over those units because it is a much safer generalist choice. Reapers are good if the enemy has a bunch of heavy infantry and little to no melee or artillery. Warp Spiders are good against masses of light infantry, a handful of heavy infantry, or against vehicles with brightlance support. If the enemy has a solid shooting force, they become a lot less good. As for Fire Dragons... they're just generally bad against anything that's not a light vehicle rush. Generalist troops will almost always be purchased more than niche troops. That's just the way it works.

Posted: **Mon 07 May, 2018 11:57 pm**

Yeah, WS/DR/FD/WG are all very niche choices which should be pretty obvious given how many different options the eldar have in the T2 and so each individually will never be used compared to the falcon.

A better comparison is the falcon vs WL. In which case the falcon is gigantically superior in pretty much all forms and MUs except orks due to how threatening T2 ork melee is.

The falcon is undoubtedly the most overpowered unit in the game. Firstly the mere fact it is a transport and has some form of scaling into T3 other than it being a mobile reinforcement point is a massive boon - one that none of the other transports have.

The fact it is anti-all, has a very generic dps, does good anti-vehicle (probably too much) bashes as fast as it does (far too quickly), and is on the eldar race that can get to T2 so quickly and easily. It is all way too much. It's completely broken.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 12:18 am**

Torpid wrote:A better comparison is the falcon vs WL. In which case the falcon is gigantically superior in pretty much all forms and MUs except orks due to how threatening T2 ork melee is.

The falcon is undoubtedly the most overpowered unit in the game. Firstly the mere fact it is a transport and has some form of scaling into T3 other than it being a mobile reinforcement point is a massive boon - one that none of the other transports have.

The fact it is anti-all, has a very generic dps, does good anti-vehicle (probably too much) bashes as fast as it does (far too quickly), and is on the eldar race that can get to T2 so quickly and easily. It is all way too much. It's completely broken.

I would personally disagree with most of this. Not the Falcon being better than the Wraithlord part, that's pretty spot on, but on other aspects.

The scaling into T3 is one of the main reasons the Falcon is useful. Without that, what do you have? The slowest, most expensive, second least durable transport on a faction that doesn't want to be losing models. The soft av is very nice, but it's not like it can stand up to other vehicles in a straight up fight.

Is gen bashing potential that bad given that Eldar are pretty bad at gen bashing to begin with? Having a couple units (Falcon and WG) that can actually kill a power farm in a reasonable amount of time doesn't seem like that big an issue, especially since they're both in T2. Technically FD are pretty good at gen bashing too, but I can't recall the last time I saw them used for that.

As for "quickly and easily," again, most expensive transport with only 7 speed (1.5 speed slower than a FoF using unit, so it's not like it's offering much mobility) and only 500 hp with no durability upgrades till T3. Given that the rest of Eldar T2 is highly focused or pretty risky, is it really that bad for them to have a generally useful gunboat-style choice?

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 1:05 am**

With regards to the Falcon...perhaps it's weapons should be similar to the OM Purgator silencers in one fashion, it must expend energy in order to turn the weapons into proper Anti Vehicle weapons. This in combination with the t3 energy shield forces the pansy to micro his Falcon well in order to both maximize it and avoid it's destruction.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 2:37 am**

The Falcon could lose the T3 shield and still be an auto-buy in 1v1 as is.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 2:54 am**

Cyris wrote:The Falcon could lose the T3 shield and still be an auto-buy in 1v1 as is.

This I strongly disagree on. 500 hp is pretty flimsy on an expensive frontline vehicle, especially in T3. It's not like Eldar have many other things that can tank in the late game.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 3:01 am**

With the falcons nerfs it getting it should be fine next patch no more needed to change on it. All the eldar t2 stuff each have it's role's they fit into which it good we don't want braindead units that is good at all.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 3:12 am**

I still have absolutely no idea what Falcon nerfs are going in, so it's hard to say.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 3:24 am**

Cyris wrote:I still have absolutely no idea what Falcon nerfs are going in, so it's hard to say.

Falcon:
Damage modifier on the eld_pulse_laser vs Building_Light reduced from 1.5 to 0.75. (venom_cannon_pvp)
Eld_dual_shuriken_catapults_fire_prism and eld_scatter_laser fire on the move accuracy reduced from 100% to 75%.
Sight range reduced from 45 to 40.

Less sight range, slower at bashing and two of it weapon won't have 100% fotm the piercing weapons its' why it so good at killing infantry since it never missing at all,should have a impact

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 10:51 am**

Not sure how to multi quote in this forum but I'll try:

Kvn wrote:
Reg9678 wrote:Some suggestions:

Eldar
-Falcon seems to be too a good as an allrounder especially in comparison to other transport units and it's kinda cheap price. In 2.8, there are some nerfs incoming for it and we'll have to see how they turn out but imo a further decrease for it's chase and av ability might be reasonable.

Falcon is the most expensive transport in the game, second most fragile in T2 next to the Wartrukk, and is the slowest at speed 7. Its late game scaling potential has already been nerfed with the shield losing a third of its effectiveness.

Reg9678 wrote:-Rangers having a very useful cc ability as snipers seemed to be out of place since forever(basically since the first big Eldar buffs in 2009). I don't know though how it can be replaced. Considering all the stuff Eldar have for quite easily punish any delayed retreat, it seems just too much.

Kinetic pulse is the only useful thing Rangers can do besides detect. They have next to no damage output, horrible scaling, and are an economic and micro investment tax that Eldar have to deal with whenever another faction deploys stealth. There's a reason Eldar is viewed as being one of the most vulnerable to stealth play.

Ranger damage isn't sky high, that's right. Though it's enough to be annoying(essentielly being damaged on sight) and pick a model here or there. While they may scale poorly, a ranged knockback is very handy throughout the game. If Scout snipers had this, I'd suspect we would see much more of them. Especially given the fact how many options Eldar have to threaten retreating squads.

Regarding the Falcon: We'll have to see how the nerfs workout. But, as pointed by some others already, the fact that a transport vehicle scales that well into T3 seems questionable. With it's shield, it has potential to solo T3 tanks(if I recall correctly given your mention of its shield nerf) while most other T2 vehicle crumble against those. And also I'd doubt that Eldar have very poor gen bashing potential. While you pointed out it's kinda slow, it's still fast enough to poke and chase well, also with its high accuracy on move.

Professional Asshole wrote:With regards to the Falcon...perhaps it's weapons should be similar to the OM Purgator silencers in one fashion, it must expend energy in order to turn the weapons into proper Anti Vehicle weapons. This in combination with the t3 energy shield forces the pansy to micro his Falcon well in order to both maximize it and avoid it's destruction.

That is a genius suggestion to be honest. So basically the Falcon can be either tanky or strong AV.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 1:49 pm**

Reg9678 wrote:Ranger damage isn't sky high, that's right. Though it's enough to be annoying(essentielly being damaged on sight) and pick a model here or there.

Rangers deal 60 damage per shot. That's not even enough to pick off Heretics. Add that to the fact that they almost never shoot the same model twice if they can help it, and you end up spending 4-5 shots just to get a model on a light infantry squad (assuming you're firing continuously, which you won't be because snipers aren't meant to be used like that).

Reg9678 wrote:While they may scale poorly, a ranged knockback is very handy throughout the game. If Scout snipers had this, I'd suspect we would see much more of them.

You realize the issue with this line of thinking, right? To begin with, Scout snipers do considerably more damage than Rangers (90 damage per shot) and serve in a completely different roster. On top of that, if you're getting Rangers just for the kinetic pulse, you're basically using them as a worse version of Artillery Spotters.

Reg9678 wrote:Especially given the fact how many options Eldar have to threaten retreating squads.

Consider A) the reason Eldar have those combo options, and B) the amount of micro needed to go into them. Eldar is the worst faction in the game for taking straight up fights. Their ability combos are part of what makes them useful. Remove kinetic pulse, and what good are Rangers? They literally just become a tax that the Eldar has to pay for detection, and their detection is already pretty bad as is.

Reg9678 wrote:Regarding the Falcon: We'll have to see how the nerfs workout. But, as pointed by some others already, the fact that a transport vehicle scales that well into T3 seems questionable.

You are completely ignoring the fact that Eldar T3 is one of the most fragile in the game. They have two incredibly fragile artillery pieces (one of which is a setup team), a squishy light-infantry melee squad, and a large support unit that needs a standing army to be useful. It is not "questionable" for Eldar to have one unit that doesn't instantly die when it gets shot at in the late game.

Reg9678 wrote: With it's shield, it has potential to solo T3 tanks

No. It doesn't. The only advantage the Falcon has over a traditional tank is its ability to back away and regen some of its shields, and that becomes less frightening when you realize that it is slower than all the tanks except the Leman Russ (which can outrange it by a considerable margin) meaning it can't do the whole "poke and retreat" tactic on its own.

Reg9678 wrote: (if I recall correctly given your mention of its shield nerf) while most other T2 vehicle crumble against those.

Their shield lost roughly a third of its effective hp a while ago. As for other T2 vehicles crumbling vs tanks, you seem to misunderstand that different units in different factions are built to do different things (ignoring the fact that a Falcon will lose in a straight up fight with any mainline battle tank).

Reg9678 wrote:And also I'd doubt that Eldar have very poor gen bashing potential.

Then you haven't been playing Eldar. It is widely known that they have the hardest time gen bashing in T1 due to lack of flamer units and not having the same aggression that you can get with factions like Chaos and Tyranids.

Reg9678 wrote:While you pointed out it's kinda slow, it's still fast enough to poke and chase well, also with its high accuracy on move.

...Which is getting nerfed already, in case you didn't check...

Reg9678 wrote:That is a genius suggestion to be honest. So basically the Falcon can be either tanky or strong AV.

No. This is not a great idea. It would mean that the Falcon would be useless in T3. It couldn't use its av weaponry, since the stuff it would shoot at would do av damage itself (and considerably more, at that) and it also couldn't use its shield since it would be helpless to fight back.

I want to stress the fact that the Falcon only has 500 hp because people don't seem to realize how little that is. They get so fixated on the idea that a Falcon with its shield is tanky, they forget how frail it is without. It is the same hp that a Fire Prism has, except that a Falcon doesn't have any of the range, disruption, or damage spike potential of a Fire Prism. I think it's pretty common to hear the horror stories of a Prism being two shot by something like a Kommando Nob or surprise av. Now imagine if you had to drive the Prism up close and personal.

I mean, I get it. "Eldar so op, best everything everywhere" so on and so forth, but nerfing the Falcon out of the game is both unnecessary and really over the top.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 2:19 pm**

Torpid and Reg about Falcon - so true

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 2:29 pm**

I remember that boss was complaining about Tyranid AV in T2 is too weak, and Venom Brood are not a real solution. So, in that regard, I have a solution.

Melee Warriors have a synapse feedback for every hormo and terma around that for a small %, and can be add up to %50 at most, no more than that. Can we have a similar benefit for Venom Brood?

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 5:17 pm**

boss wrote:Falcon:
Damage modifier on the eld_pulse_laser vs Building_Light reduced from 1.5 to 0.75. (venom_cannon_pvp)
Eld_dual_shuriken_catapults_fire_prism and eld_scatter_laser fire on the move accuracy reduced from 100% to 75%.
Sight range reduced from 45 to 40.

That's pretty solid.
The vision never, ever should have been increased to 45.
Reducing the Falcons ability to bash alone is good. That was one of it's truly toxic aspects.
FOTM nerf brings it more in line with the other transports AI capabilities.
I like that the AV wasn't touched, allowing that to stay one of the units strengths.

Falcon remains anti-all near auto purchase, but should be a touch weaker at this allowing other units more room.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 9:16 pm**

Torpid wrote:Yeah, WS/DR/FD/WG are all very niche choices which should be pretty obvious given how many different options the eldar have in the T2 and so each individually will never be used compared to the falcon.

A better comparison is the falcon vs WL. In which case the falcon is gigantically superior in pretty much all forms and MUs except orks due to how threatening T2 ork melee is.

The falcon is undoubtedly the most overpowered unit in the game. Firstly the mere fact it is a transport and has some form of scaling into T3 other than it being a mobile reinforcement point is a massive boon - one that none of the other transports have.

The fact it is anti-all, has a very generic dps, does good anti-vehicle (probably too much) bashes as fast as it does (far too quickly), and is on the eldar race that can get to T2 so quickly and easily. It is all way too much. It's completely broken.

Cyris wrote:The Falcon could lose the T3 shield and still be an auto-buy in 1v1 as is.

These comments made me pretty angry, so I decided to binge watch four games by pretty high lvl players. Three were usable. Results:

life (WL) vs. Toilailee (TM) -> T2: WL, Autarch

Ruthless at heart (PC) vs. Choko Rambus (WSE) -> T2: WL, Autarch, WL

Randy (WL) vs. Guru Skippy (KN) -> T2: Falcon (which died pretty quickly)

Please indulge me how the falcon is "completely broken" or an "auto-buy" exactly? Throwing these words around without much meanin dimishes the words when they are applicable. So please reconsider your wording and your arguments. You are not here to sell a patch.

Greets
Schepp himself

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 9:27 pm**

Yeah i think theres a little bit of hyperbole around the falcon, likely due to bad memories of their previously OP state. Theyre better now (sounds like the upcoming changes will be perfect), but theyre still easily a go-to purchase in t2. But thats not a bad thing! Most races have a go-to T2 unit that if they are ahead when they tech, makes the most sense to purchase. Thats the whole point of winning T1, you get to dictate the pacing of the ongoing game by purchasing a force multiplier, which often will come in the form of a transport.

Yes the falcom is a particularly good transport, bu5 saying its an auto-buy and writing it off as too powerful because of that is overlooking its intended role - to leverage a tech advantage into map pressure.

Same deal with SM razorback or IG chimera - if those races win the tech game in T1, that will often be their first T2 purchase. Not because the units are broken, but because they give you the tempo in the game by forcing the enemy to respond with AV. Buying a more niche unit makes a lot more sense when your opponent has thw tempo.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 10:00 pm**

egewithin wrote:I remember that boss was complaining about Tyranid AV in T2 is too weak, and Venom Brood are not a real solution. So, in that regard, I have a solution.

Melee Warriors have a synapse feedback for every hormo and terma around that for a small %, and can be add up to %50 at most, no more than that. Can we have a similar benefit for Venom Brood?

I for one think that would be a terrible idea. Mostly because I very much disagree with the first statement.

Kvn... Falcon is not fragile compared to the other transports at all, look up the stats, seriously. T3 Eldar is not all glass -.- ...
Just so many things wrong that I CBA to answer on everything but neither should these hyperboles and wrong information go by.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 10:49 pm**

Because I don't feel like getting into yet another lengthy debate that goes nowhere, I'll say this and only this to you, Riku.

Dark Riku wrote:Kvn... Falcon is not fragile compared to the other transports at all, look up the stats, seriously.

Falcon - costs 360/90 - 500hp
Razorback - costs 330/80 with upgrade - 600 hp with upgrade
Chimera - 300/60 - 500hp with the benefit of Guardsmen enhanced repair support
Wartrukk - 250/50 with upgrade - 550 hp with upgrade

So thank you for pointing out the stats, as you've made me realize that the Falcon is actually *the* most fragile transport in T2 while also being the most expensive. I had mistakenly believed the Wartrukk upgrade gave less hp than it did.

Dark Riku wrote:T3 Eldar is not all glass -.- ...

Eldar T3 is, objectively speaking, the most fragile in the game. Whether you love them or hate them, that's not really open for debate. Having no mainline battle tank, no heavy/super heavy infantry choices, and no durable ranged superiority fighters means they are far more fragile than the others who can field tougher options. Note that I never said "waaah! Eldar T3 so helpless and weak!" I simply pointed out the fact that they lack durability.

Posted: **Tue 08 May, 2018 11:57 pm**

Kvn wrote:So thank you for pointing out the stats, as you've made me realize that the Falcon is actually *the* most fragile transport in T2 while also being the most expensive. I had mistakenly believed the Wartrukk upgrade gave less hp than it did.

Yeah just handily leave out all the Eldar support but name them for the others and the fact that the falcon does a shitton of damage and AV damage on top of that. Yeah, lets only take the upgrades on the other vehicles. But not on the falcon. Such a great way of looking at things!

Kvn wrote:Eldar T3 is, objectively speaking, the most fragile in the game.

No, no they aren't. You have to see the bigger picture...

Posted: **Wed 09 May, 2018 12:51 pm**

I just looked up if there is something about the falcon in the initial list posted by Atlas and it actually isn't. So I think it would make sense if he wait how the nerf of the falcon in 2.8. turns out and then dive into the discussion once again.

Greets
Schepp himself

Posted: **Wed 09 May, 2018 1:07 pm**

Kvn wrote:Because I don't feel like getting into yet another lengthy debate that goes nowhere, I'll say this and only this.

Falcon - costs 360/90 - 500hp
Razorback - costs 330/80 with upgrade - 600 hp with upgrade
Chimera - 300/60 - 500hp with the benefit of Guardsmen enhanced repair support
Wartrukk - 250/50 with upgrade - 550 hp with upgrade

So thank you for pointing out the stats, as you've made me realize that the Falcon is actually *the* most fragile transport in T2 while also being the most expensive. I had mistakenly believed the Wartrukk upgrade gave less hp than it did.

Eldar T3 is, objectively speaking, the most fragile in the game. Whether you love them or hate them, that's not really open for debate. Having no mainline battle tank, no heavy/super heavy infantry choices, and no durable ranged superiority fighters means they are far more fragile than the others who can field tougher options. Note that I never said "waaah! Eldar T3 so helpless and weak!" I simply pointed out the fact that they lack durability.

I think you're missing the whole gist of Eldar not being Space Marines. Their strength relies on their synergy and speed and a competent Eldar player is going to use everything he has (which requires a lot more micro than an SM player) to disrupt as much as he can, outflank and hit them from ranges they can't react to. Eldar require a lot more skill to make work, and when they do work, you're not going to be left with much time to react before they've wiped you off the face of the map.

They don't need a "mainline" battle tank, the Fire Prism is damage and disruption from a range you'll rarely reach, Seer Council are beefy fucks with 50% ranged damage resistance thrown in as well as access to all of the Eldar buffs from the heroes, Autarch, webways etc. Pretty sure Wraithguard count as ranged superiority, or Dark Reapers, or Warp Spiders, but if they weren't enough then welcome the engagement ending D-cannon. Who cares about fragility when your engagements last ten seconds.

Posted: **Wed 09 May, 2018 2:21 pm**

Swift wrote:Who cares about fragility when your engagements last ten seconds.

Dark Riku wrote:You have to see the bigger picture

Posted: **Wed 09 May, 2018 2:33 pm**

Posted: **Wed 09 May, 2018 4:07 pm**

Swift wrote:I think you're missing the whole gist of Eldar not being Space Marines.

I never said they were. I said that they had the most fragile and expensive transport, which they do. Riku demanded I look at statistics, claiming I was completely wrong. I pointed out that statistics backed me up.

Swift wrote:Their strength relies on their synergy and speed and a competent Eldar player is going to use everything he has (which requires a lot more micro than an SM player) to disrupt as much as he can, outflank and hit them from ranges they can't react to. Eldar require a lot more skill to make work, and when they do work, you're not going to be left with much time to react before they've wiped you off the face of the map.

I know that. I can understand the concepts of racial design.

Swift wrote:They don't need a "mainline" battle tank,

I literally never said that they did. I said they didn't have one. They don't. That is not some outcry about how unfair and broken it is that everyone else gets a tank. It's a simple statement of fact.

Swift wrote:Seer Council are beefy fucks with 50% ranged damage resistance thrown in

Seer Council have 15% ranged damage resist, not 50. Even when stacked with the Autarch aura, it still only stands at 30%. Unless you're referring to stacking the Seer Council, Autarch, and Avatar auras all together at the same time, at which point I would call it a very misleading statistic given you only mention the Seers themselves.

Swift wrote:Pretty sure Wraithguard count as ranged superiority,

Given their nature, they tend to serve more as a shock troop, forcing disruption on the enemy lines as opposed to standing and trading shots.

Swift wrote:or Dark Reapers, or Warp Spiders,

Seeing as neither of these are good at straight up shootouts, you and I seem to have very different definitions of ranged superiority units. When talking about melee superiority units, things like Nobz and LC Terminators come to mind which can take on other melee head on. I do not think of Assault Marines, which are designed to focus on targets that don't do well in melee, kind of similarly to how DR and WS are designed to shoot at targets that can't shoot them back for the most part.

Swift wrote:but if they weren't enough then welcome the engagement ending D-cannon.

And now we're slipping into exaggeration, ignoring the fact that literally any well deployed artillery unit can be considered "engagement ending."

Swift wrote: Who cares about fragility when your engagements last ten seconds.

This is getting to be way too much, so let me make this perfectly clear. I did NOT say it was bad for Eldar to be frail. I did NOT demand that they be buffed or whine about how impossible it is to win because they can't take straight up fights as well as other factions. I pointed out that they lacked the staying power of other factions as-is and asked that the Falcon not be nerfed to the ground on the basis that it had some durability in T3. That is all. I get the knee-jerk reaction to suggesting that Eldar has some weaknesses is to shout the person down, but please realize that I'm not saying they shouldn't have these weaknesses. Every faction has shortcomings, and I'm not demanding they be buffed to the level of Space Marines like you seem to think I am.

Dawn of War Codex

2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)