Dawn of War Codex

i did some theory crafting on scorpions, the idea being that they're a t1 call-in.

Nuclear Arbitor wrote:i did some theory crafting on scorpions, the idea being that they're a t1 call-in.

Code: Select all

5 Striking Scorpions (400/40/50)
160hp per model
chainsword (20dps melee_pvp) & shuriken pistol/mandiblasters (5dps piercing_pvp, 100% fotm)
heavy_infantry
no speicals
70 melee skill
no melee charge
infiltrate
xp 100
red 8
speed 5.5
courage 100
sight 40
size small

Exarch (85/20/0 T2)
200hp
two chainswords (40dps melee_pvp) mandiblasters (3dps Piercing_pvp, 100% fotm)
heavy_infantry
no specials
70 melee skill

Aspect of the Scorpion (100/20/0 T2)
move through cover
scorpion's claw (35dps heavy_melee_pvp, 7dps piercing_pvp, 100% fotm)

Executioner (75/10/0 T2)
executioner (43dps heavy_melee_pvp, 35% 180 degree knockback)


Interesting. Though I don't know the stats of other units so would be nice to be able to compare, at least with Banshees.
And what's the executioner? If the Exarch's weapon would be upgradeable the Scorpion's Claw should be what it is upgraded to, since it's the best weapon he can get. He should start with Chainsabres as suggested (dual chainswords basically) or Biting Blade (semi-heavy two-handed weapon).

As for Scorpions vs Banshees. I'd say Scorpions wouldn't be as good at chasing down enemies, but can stay in the fight longer and can be a good idea when power weapons are "redundant".

Also, maybe a new thread for this since this one's supposed to be about Rangers

What' the purpose of the unit tho? If I want a meat shield, I'll rely on my warlock + deployable shields, and if I want to deal with melee I'll rely on fleetness banshees.

I would worry about the specialization of low damage/ infiltration/ tanky melee squad encroaching on the roles of other units within the Eldar arsenal too much without itself having a unique role.

i.e: melee for banshees (for beating T1 dedicated melee) or
infiltration from rangers (for decaping, attacking setup teams)

It seems like some kind of weird durable tie up squad, but all the health in the world won't do it much good if it doesn't do damage.

If you moved to tier 2 and gave heavy melee instead of normal melee, then I could understand it being a durable melee anti-vehical infantry (which banshees have mostly done with exarch or with autarch global in the past). That would be a unique unit setup that Eldar don't have at the moment

meant biting blade; must have confused it with the imperial chain sword when i wrote that.

anyway, the point of the squad is to provide a counter to setup teams other than rangers, to provide a tanky tie up similar to ASM with infiltration instead of a jump, and to have a light counter to kiting. they're not intended to beat counter melee squads though; they have no specials without the biting blade. on second thought they might be more interesting with the greater damage on the fist and biting blade keeping the special to differentiate the roles rather than making one a straight upgrade.

as far as rangers go, i think they're fine as is. mechanics wise they're not supposed to be competent in melee, even compared to units like GM.

Striking scorpions is a dead idea
it is unnecessary unit, he has no role in eldar army, when you have already banshees.

and infiltration doesnt rly counters setup teams, you cant rely on stealth in elite, detectors everywhere:) rangers have upper hand here vs setup teams+ eldar need a unit (banshees) who counter melee unit.but vs vehicles gonna be funny:) what is again not rly needed since almost all tier 2 roster counters vehicle.

and i think more tanky melee then banshees in tier 1-2 is op/ not necessary for a race like eldar.
and it is absolutely not accetable 2 melee unit for eldar banshee +scorpion too much in tier 1-2
even in dawn of war 1 you cant find striking scorpions, i like scorpions but you cant just put every single unit in the game from the lore sadly...

but overall it is just not a needed unit for eldar, they doesnt suffer from not having scorpions(+it is very hard to design and fit his role in dow 2 galaxy to be a legitim unit)
maybe in the far future if the mod will have big changes in metagame they can consider this unit or other again.

I still don't understand why it would be unreasonable to give Rangers power melee damage for swords (the two models other than the sniper itself), in addition to melee resistance aura to validate Rangers as a viable melee squad. This would give a little more strategic variety to the use of rangers, especially as a popular ghost/ninja capping unit.

I wouldn't necessarily mean for rangers to be better than melee squads specifically, but for Rangers to be noticeably better than other dedicated range squad or setup teams.

xerrol-nanoha wrote:I wouldn't necessarily mean for rangers to be better than melee squads specifically, but for Rangers to be noticeably better than other dedicated range squad or setup teams.

And they should be like this while being an already very awesome unit because...?
They are a sniper unit. Any melee should counter them in the same way 3 horma models counter a full health scout squad in melee.

Dark Riku wrote:

xerrol-nanoha wrote:I wouldn't necessarily mean for rangers to be better than melee squads specifically, but for Rangers to be noticeably better than other dedicated range squad or setup teams.

And they should be like this while being an already very awesome unit because...?
They are a sniper unit. Any melee should counter them in the same way 3 horma models counter a full health scout squad in melee.

I said nothing that disagrees with you?

xerrol-nanoha wrote:I said nothing that disagrees with you?

Yes you did... °_O
You want them to have power melee for no reason.

xerrol-nanoha wrote:I still don't understand why it would be unreasonable to give Rangers power melee damage for swords (the two models other than the sniper itself), in addition to melee resistance aura to validate Rangers as a viable melee squad

Simply because you would be denying rangers from a counter. If rangers are capable melee units then how you counter them? being a sniper squad they naturally hard counter setup teams and garrisoned squads plus causing attrition, in addition to that they got kinetic shot to either stall incoming melee units or to setup grenade spikes!

Now you want them to be also good at melee? well sure, then why shouldn't tacticals beat banshees in melee? or lets make ASM be able to take dire avengers in a firefight, they got bolt pistols after all.

Bahamut wrote:

xerrol-nanoha wrote:I still don't understand why it would be unreasonable to give Rangers power melee damage for swords (the two models other than the sniper itself), in addition to melee resistance aura to validate Rangers as a viable melee squad

Simply because you would be denying rangers from a counter. If rangers are capable melee units then how you counter them? being a sniper squad they naturally hard counter setup teams and garrisoned squads plus causing attrition, in addition to that they got kinetic shot to either stall incoming melee units or to setup grenade spikes!

Now you want them to be also good at melee? well sure, then why shouldn't tacticals beat banshees in melee? or lets make ASM be able to take dire avengers in a firefight, they got bolt pistols after all.

That's not the case at all, any dedicated melee or jump melee squad would be able to force them off easily. Giving them power melee and melee resistance would simply allow them to threaten certain heavy infantry squads like purgation squads or tzeench chaos marines, along with heavy infantry armor setup squads.

They would still handily lose to assault marines or raptors, to say less of any hard melee like khorne marines or banshees.

To that end, it would simply widen reinforce the roll of Rangers as an anti-setup team unit, but simply allowing more tools to perform that role, and allowing more versatility toward later T2 and T3 where sniper squads in general lose effectiveness.

Faultron wrote:Striking scorpions is a dead idea
it is unnecessary unit, he has no role in eldar army, when you have already banshees.

and infiltration doesnt rly counters setup teams, you cant rely on stealth in elite, detectors everywhere:) rangers have upper hand here vs setup teams+ eldar need a unit (banshees) who counter melee unit.but vs vehicles gonna be funny:) what is again not rly needed since almost all tier 2 roster counters vehicle.

and i think more tanky melee then banshees in tier 1-2 is op/ not necessary for a race like eldar.
and it is absolutely not accetable 2 melee unit for eldar banshee +scorpion too much in tier 1-2
even in dawn of war 1 you cant find striking scorpions, i like scorpions but you cant just put every single unit in the game from the lore sadly...

but overall it is just not a needed unit for eldar, they doesnt suffer from not having scorpions(+it is very hard to design and fit his role in dow 2 galaxy to be a legitim unit)
maybe in the far future if the mod will have big changes in metagame they can consider this unit or other again.

Personally I think that Scorpions would be a better choice in every much up where you don't really need power melee, such as against IG, Orks, other Eldar and maybe Nids. Shees aren't needed as a soft AV anymore since Eldar have plenty of AV in T2 and in 2v2 or rather 3v3 Scorpions would be also better due to being tougher than Shees.

About the Rangers, I think even if they had power melee and resistance aura it's not like you would rush them into melee fight. And for defense purposes it seems rather strange.

so wait, you want to add more units to eldar? no, just no. As for why rangers have swords, it sure does make them look alot cooler. In case you haven't noticed, alot of things in this game are about flash and look.

xerrol-nanoha wrote:

Bahamut wrote:

xerrol-nanoha wrote:I still don't understand why it would be unreasonable to give Rangers power melee damage for swords (the two models other than the sniper itself), in addition to melee resistance aura to validate Rangers as a viable melee squad

Simply because you would be denying rangers from a counter. If rangers are capable melee units then how you counter them? being a sniper squad they naturally hard counter setup teams and garrisoned squads plus causing attrition, in addition to that they got kinetic shot to either stall incoming melee units or to setup grenade spikes!

Now you want them to be also good at melee? well sure, then why shouldn't tacticals beat banshees in melee? or lets make ASM be able to take dire avengers in a firefight, they got bolt pistols after all.

That's not the case at all, any dedicated melee or jump melee squad would be able to force them off easily. Giving them power melee and melee resistance would simply allow them to threaten certain heavy infantry squads like purgation squads or tzeench chaos marines, along with heavy infantry armor setup squads.

They would still handily lose to assault marines or raptors, to say less of any hard melee like khorne marines or banshees.

To that end, it would simply widen reinforce the roll of Rangers as an anti-setup team unit, but simply allowing more tools to perform that role, and allowing more versatility toward later T2 and T3 where sniper squads in general lose effectiveness.

Wut? Why would you give a dedicated sniper squad better chance to better excel at melee with power melee? They already do more damage than all the other setup teams (barbed strangler warrior brood being the only exception) in melee - why do they need to excel even more versus HI units? They can cloak, peg off a unit with a snipe and then, if you feel it necessary for some strange reason, have them close in for melee with a setup team and they will probably win because of their melee dps.
Though at what point would you ever want to expose such a weak squad by closing up to enemy lines is beyond my understanding. They're perfectly fine where they currently sit, and the swords are there for whatever reason- just because they have some weapons doesn't mean we should adjust them to fit a melee role.

xerrol-nanoha wrote:I still don't understand why it would be unreasonable to give Rangers power melee damage for swords (the two models other than the sniper itself), in addition to melee resistance aura to validate Rangers as a viable melee squad. This would give a little more strategic variety to the use of rangers, especially as a popular ghost/ninja capping unit.

I wouldn't necessarily mean for rangers to be better than melee squads specifically, but for Rangers to be noticeably better than other dedicated range squad or setup teams.

eldar race in retail dont have chain sword or hammer like melee weapons, only sword and spear+ power blade for WSE this is uniq for the race to be cool+ lore and different from others.
in the past rangers had power melee, but was removed as already said.(it was op)
the exarch ugrades(warlock) for guardians(dire avengers) they had sword in retail(but not power melee maybe in beta stage only), but they have chainsword in elite for some reason i dont even know:) (but looks cool atleast xD) wraithguard warlock still has the sword.

Commissar_Badass wrote:

xerrol-nanoha wrote:That's not the case at all, any dedicated melee or jump melee squad would be able to force them off easily. Giving them power melee and melee resistance would simply allow them to threaten certain heavy infantry squads like purgation squads or tzeench chaos marines, along with heavy infantry armor setup squads.

They would still handily lose to assault marines or raptors, to say less of any hard melee like khorne marines or banshees.

To that end, it would simply widen reinforce the roll of Rangers as an anti-setup team unit, but simply allowing more tools to perform that role, and allowing more versatility toward later T2 and T3 where sniper squads in general lose effectiveness.

Wut? Why would you give a dedicated sniper squad better chance to better excel at melee with power melee? They already do more damage than all the other setup teams (barbed strangler warrior brood being the only exception) in melee - why do they need to excel even more versus HI units? They can cloak, peg off a unit with a snipe and then, if you feel it necessary for some strange reason, have them close in for melee with a setup team and they will probably win because of their melee dps.
Though at what point would you ever want to expose such a weak squad by closing up to enemy lines is beyond my understanding. They're perfectly fine where they currently sit, and the swords are there for whatever reason- just because they have some weapons doesn't mean we should adjust them to fit a melee role.

I'm not trying to say you should use them differently, or that the way they are used now is wrong. I'm simply saying that adding options to a 1 dimensional unit that loses strength in the late game would be fine.

Stealth melee is a wasted opportunity for Eldar, although there are methods to cloak banshees, i'm not talking about an a dedicated melee arrangement, instead that Rangers, which have swords already, should be good enough in melee to defeat types of squads that have no melee aptitude at all: such as other setup teams and dedicated range, including but not limited to purgation squads, devastators, havocs, tzeench marines, dark reapers, and lootas.

I'm not trying to say Rangers should be a dedicated melee or that melee be a primary role, but instead that it should be a situational option as apposed to an act of desperation. The swords are already there, so I feel they that rangers should be decent at using them.

I will reiterate that making it power melee wouldn't make rangers OP, as they would still lose to any heavy infantry with even the slightest melee aptitude, such as strike squads, CSM, etc not to mention jump troopers like assault marines or interceptors.

I would go so far as to say that by not making Ranger swords deal power melee, you give balance preference to factions with an overabundance of heavy infantry (space marine, chaos, grey knights) as the point of Rangers is to fight setup teams universallly, regardless of their armor type; But I won't pass any judgement about your clear preferences.

In actuality, my main concern isn't even that Rangers get power melee, even though I think that would be fair, My concern is that Rangers, whom already have swords, should therefore qualify for melee resistance aura - which they currently lack.

In not having melee resistance aura, I would say that having normal swords functions as an unnecessary weakness, and that those models could equip shuriken catapults in the same way that guardian weapon teams and Distortion cannons do, as well as scouts and every other space marine setup team equips bolters.

And that's that. You can say OP, but while I would acknowledge an increase in overall unit value and potential, I wouldn't see how adding alternative choices to a unit increases its total value. To say that Rangers would overpowered with melee resistance aura is like saying that Banshees are OP because they now have aspect of fleetness IN ADDITION to aspect of strength when all it does it change the choices that can be made.

David-CZ wrote:
Personally I think that Scorpions would be a better choice in every much up where you don't really need power melee, such as against IG, Orks, other Eldar and maybe Nids. Shees aren't needed as a soft AV anymore since Eldar have plenty of AV in T2 and in 2v2 or rather 3v3 Scorpions would be also better due to being tougher than Shees.

Powermelee is good vs all race.
Powermelee is better then general melee, there is no downside.the most important here maybe is in T1 that power melee does full damage to Hero not 0,7.and every race has HI or SHI infantry in tier 1-2 or leaders in upgrades.
So what kind of damage/unit you imagine for Scorpions?
general damage with cloak and heavy armor?shees still better then this cos of moving speed and warshout if enemy has detectors.Scorpions will never outshine shees in this game vs infantry, unless u able to use stealth effectively with them.which can be done with rangers at the moment as well too, even full army.
or heavy melee when you already mentioned it is unnecessary another AV in T2.

the purpose of striking scorpions in the lore is basicly a stronger unit then banshee in damage and in durability, but not mobile.(they have power melee+heavy melee damage as well higher then banshee i think) their target are more of a heavier kind of enemy with those weapons they have in the lore.

i dont know how u imagine them, but i see only 1 possibility to come in this game.
if we change the banshees upgrades being only aspect of the fleetness no other path, and Scorpions gonna be av counter from T1 lol.
no, just general melee in T1 and from T2 heavy melee:)
or somehow manage to go with banshees upgrade in T2 as av counter so u can choose u stay banshee fleetness or u advance to scorpion:)

At the moment Eldar have way too much tier 2, I would almost want Dark Reapers or Fire Dragons to be moved to either 1 or 3, because Eldar T2 is really cramped.

And yet, if you were to add a new Eldar melee infantry, although I would prefer not because banshees are already there... then it would have to be tier 2 to not interfer with banshees or seer counsel.

Having 2 dedicated melee in tier 1 would just... ackward.

@Faultron:
I don't know how things work in TT but judging by the actual looks of the model and the names of its weapons Scorpions have regular melee damage type. After all they all have chain swords. The exarch then has a power claw which is the only power melee the squad has.

If the squad was put in the game I'd imagine it to be an alternative for Shees. Depending on what kind of enemy you're facing. Whether light or heavy infantry based. With this unit on the field perhaps people would complain less about heaving squads wiped by Shees on retreat too. They would generally be a tougher and slower unit with perhaps higher DPS than Shees but having regular melee. They'd most likely have an ability to use the mandiblasters and perhaps cloak either active or passive depending on overall OPness/UPness.

With Heavy Armour and maybe even cloak, they would be much more resistant against incoming enemy fire, when closing in, for melee.

- less deadly than Banshees but also less "bleedy" -

Maybe with their combination of pistols and Mandi Blasters they'd even have decent priercing-damage-type firepower ( for a melee squad ) to put a pit of damage on the target while closing the distance / charging in.

Making them I'd guess an option when fighting (shooty), light infantry armies, like Orks, Guard maybe other Eldar.

Against all kind of heavy armour / Marines, Banshess ofcourse would still be a more sensible Option.

______________

stuff that had been said befor, but i wanted to give my 2cents to it

Stick to the topic please.

Without feeding the scorpion tangent I'm just gonna roll with my intuitions.

Because Rangers have swords, they should at the least have melee resistance aura. Even grenade heretics and tzeench marines have melee resistance aura, so why can't rangers if they carry an explicit melee weapon.

On that theme I would prefer Rangers deal power melee damage (regardless of the actual damage amount that is dealt, I wouldn't presume to make a decision on how strong Rangers should be) simply because Rangers are meant to be strong against setup teams and dedicated range, and as sniper type damage is undiscriminating in that way, I would think power melee would therefore be the most fair.

Ranger MR would be a significant buff vs. jump troops so I doubt many will agree on implementing it...

xerrol-nanoha wrote:Without feeding the scorpion tangent I'm just gonna roll with my intuitions.

Because Rangers have swords, they should at the least have melee resistance aura. Even grenade heretics and tzeench marines have melee resistance aura, so why can't rangers if they carry an explicit melee weapon.

On that theme I would prefer Rangers deal power melee damage (regardless of the actual damage amount that is dealt, I wouldn't presume to make a decision on how strong Rangers should be) simply because Rangers are meant to be strong against setup teams and dedicated range, and as sniper type damage is undiscriminating in that way, I would think power melee would therefore be the most fair.

melee resistance on ranged unit is super very rare, and they have melee resistance for good reason.
and none of the eldar ranged unit has melee resistance, they have different playstyle/units, they dont need.
Rangers have sword cos of eldar lore, and ingame having melee weapon+shuri pistol on sniper squad who can go stealth is superior then let say shuriken catapult cos of smaller range. when you use infiltrate on scout sniper unit which has bolter with 38 range u have to be aware to keep the distance of 39 or more, cos bolter shots break the stealth.on ranger this critical distance is 23 or more cos pistol has 22 range.
this is a + for ranger not a negative thing.+ they have kinetic pulse.
Ranger is not for melee combat, they are snipers, even if they have ,high' melee damage, max you can do is finish off units with melee with them.They now can still beat in melee most of T1 weaker unupgraded ranged units, if you would like to go in melee with them:), so u can use melee but not without thinking/limit.but again melee resistance on rangers will never happen.

Power melee dmg on sword was removed due of setup team wipe and able to destroy turets easily, mostly i think in the very past, but i dont know exactly.and it is very hard to use rangers in melee in T2/T3 anyway even if they get these buffs that you want...and it is just a wrong use of them, they are more effective from long range+support ur army.And you have enough power melee damage against SM-like races.

xerrol-nanoha wrote:Because Rangers have swords, they should at the least have melee resistance aura. Even grenade heretics and tzeench marines have melee resistance aura, so why can't rangers if they carry an explicit melee weapon.

On that theme I would prefer Rangers deal power melee damage (regardless of the actual damage amount that is dealt, I wouldn't presume to make a decision on how strong Rangers should be) simply because Rangers are meant to be strong against setup teams and dedicated range, and as sniper type damage is undiscriminating in that way, I would think power melee would therefore be the most fair.

The fact they 'suck' at melee is also due to not being aspect warriors if you want stick to the lore. Rangers are basically outcasts on a path. And any craftworld Eldar can become an outcast regardless of their previous paths. Meaning they don't necessarily have any fighting experience. If the Rangers in the game were some sort of elite warriors only squad perhaps then you'd be right. But as it is now they are actually quite accurate representation of the lore Rangers.

xerrol-nanoha wrote:Because Rangers have swords, they should at the least have melee resistance aura.

Let's reverse this "logic". Rangers don't have melee resistance so they should not have swords. Remove the swords. Problem solved.

xerrol-nanoha wrote:On that theme I would prefer Rangers deal power melee damage (regardless of the actual damage amount that is dealt, I wouldn't presume to make a decision on how strong Rangers should be)

Sure. I don't think anyone would have a problem with 1DPS power melee rangers.


This thread is so luls but luckily I see there are some level headed people too.

Melee resistance aura will help them to survive against jump units. It should not be like that. And it is harder to jump on them than to jump on sniper scouts because rangers have better firing range. And even without melee resistance aura they are still able to defeat setup teams and some ranged squads which is fine.
Plague marines can heal friendly units on death. That is just a bonus. But they are primarily an AV-squad. Rangers have swords to attack in melee in some situations. And that is just a bonus too. They are primarily snipers.

xerrol-nanoha wrote:I think it would be interesting if Rangers had a tier 2-3 that gave them power melee swords and 40% melee reduction.

Naturally the dude with the big gun wouldn't have power melee, but I think it would be interesting how it would play out.

I almost wouldn't mind an HP nerf if 40% melee reduction were available.

no

do you know Xerrol, that having melee resistance is not so good thing on setup team, you loose your melee resistance aura on retreat.so if u wanted lower hp but melee resistance aura the ranger gonna be worse.

http://www.gamereplays.org/dawnofwar2/p ... awn-of-war

Sub_Zero wrote:Melee resistance aura will help them to survive against jump units. It should not be like that. And it is harder to jump on them than to jump on sniper scouts because rangers have better firing range. And even without melee resistance aura they are still able to defeat setup teams and some ranged squads which is fine.

Melee resistance aura wouldn't come close to saving them from jump units, much less actually giving them an edge.

Sub_Zero wrote:Rangers have swords to attack in melee in some situations. And that is just a bonus too. They are primarily snipers.

I never said anything to dispute any of this, If you mean to use that as arguments for Rangers not having melee resistance aura, then say that so I don't have to assume what people mean.

Faultron wrote:do you know Xerrol, that having melee resistance is not so good thing on setup team, you loose your melee resistance aura on retreat.so if u wanted lower hp but melee resistance aura the ranger gonna be worse.

I don't see that as a problem in Rangers case, perhaps in a different team, but not Rangers.

Dark Riku wrote:

xerrol-nanoha wrote:Because Rangers have swords, they should at the least have melee resistance aura.

Let's reverse this "logic". Rangers don't have melee resistance so they should not have swords. Remove the swords. Problem solved.

I actually offered that as a potential solution earlier.
I'm not going to defend my OCD to you.
Rangers have swords, therefore they should be reliable users of them.
If they're not reliable users of them, they should not have swords.
It's pretty simple.

Dark Riku wrote:

xerrol-nanoha wrote:me to make a decision on how strong Rangers should be)[/i]

Sure. I don't think anyone would have a problem with 1DPS power melee rangers.

Say what you mean - power melee isn't the godly end all of everything you make it out to be, I won't presume to read your mind.

Dark Riku wrote:This thread is so luls but luckily I see there are some level headed people too.

I also used to have respect for you, but respect has to be mutual.