Dawn of War Codex

So this last night, over the past few games, people have been complaining about double snipers - I've even been called out for following some apparent "Flavor of the Month" deal, though I have no idea as to why that's the case. From what I can figure out, I'm guessing a recent cast of Indrid's have made them popular or something (Booty mentioned Indrid's name, so I'm assuming it's his casts).

I'm going to state that I've literally been running snipers a lot lately because I've noticed there have been a lot of PC's as of late as well, and as it's been mentioned in another thread, PC gets destroyed by snipers (especially if there's dbl csm I find). But that being said, I don't think scout snipers are the best thing around, and are quite easily countered yet I've been getting a lot of complaints about them. I mean, in a MU with eldar for example, I would never dream of getting scout snipers as the investment to make them even semi viable in comparison to a ranger squad is not worth it for me.

Can someone clear up why it gets so much flak for what it is? Is there something effective about them now that's making them so much more popular, and I'm not aware of it. Also, can someone explain what it is that Indrid said/showed that made scout's supposedly "the new flavor for sm"? I've seen only a few other players sporting double/triple snipers lately, so I'm not sure how much truth there is to it.

One major reason why. Took over 3/4 of the thread

The only problem with snipers, I think, is that they can be spawned. If each player could get only one sniper unit, that would keep them being powerful and would end the sad image of the "sniper army".

Like, instead of only one sniper rifle per unit, give them two or three, but limited to one unit per player (one Ranger unit, one Scout unit with Sniper Rifles, etc) just the same way Sternguards and Vanguards are limited to one upgrade per Space Marine player. That would also help to balance the lonely Vindicare Assassin.

PC gets destroyed by snipers (especially if there's dbl csm I find).

Oh rly, tell me more about a build that can turtle forever but that can be countered by arty/snipers.

Can someone clear up why it gets so much flak for what it is?

the answer is easy, take a look at who is complaining.

I only mentioned it because every effing game I played someone uses scout snipers and loses.

So I called it FOTM because maestro/indrid mentioned it in a video like 10 days ago and now that's all I see.

Use dual rangers, roughly three times as effective as scout snipers.
Enjoy your game...

Only time i get pissed at snipers is when some1 has more than 3 or 4 (lag often gets 4 at least) but at least this can be dealt with a quick vehicle play or as what i did against them get 2 raptors with chaos:p

The thing that makes me most pissed about Snipers is the way the people keep complaining about them. Some people use snipers, and they use them well. Just play the game and if the Sniper pokes his head out, you have your counters. If he beats you, he just plays better.

Ace of Swords wrote:

PC gets destroyed by snipers (especially if there's dbl csm I find).

Oh rly, tell me more about a build that can turtle forever but that can be countered by arty/snipers.

1). Anything SM that involves lots of set-up teams, a librarian and ASM, especially with the apothecary.

2). Double zoanthrope builds supported with 2-3 ES terms.

3) Chaos sorceror hugbot/havoc/bl/tcsm builds due to sigil and his worship.

4) LC with bionic eye catachans alongside his dual autocannon HWT and 2 PG GM/chimera.

5) Inquisitor with standard med bunker/2 PG GM/spotters + manticore with the crossbow bolt pistol, interrogator's and servo skull.

6) Anything eldar due to rangers, autarch, shimmer orbs, warp throw and mind war/rune armour.

Can someone clear up why it gets so much flak for what it is?

Snipers are completely overpowered in team games. You can't push elsewhere on the map due to either how linear or horizontal they are (not circular with lots of LoS blockers). Your foe doesn't have to be wary about map control, nor does she have to gen bash, or care if she gets gen-bashed, nor does he care about vehicle rushes since no doubt your heavy sniper t1 gives way for your ally to rush T2 themselves and spam AV and CI.

That Torpid Gamer wrote:1). Anything SM that involves lots of set-up teams, a librarian and ASM, especially with the apothecary.

XD vs setup get raptors, vs asm/libby get sword/fist, vs apo do w/e you want.

I'm not playing too much recently (only 1 or 2 games per day) but I'm noticing that in 3vs3 a lot more of 2 x Scout Snipers build where in the past was a 2 x Tacs build. Snipers always had been great with Techmarine (because of his awesome AV capabilities) but I'm seeing now this build with Apo and FC.

To be honest, it's a nuissance. Not only for the Scout Snipers (whose are fucking annoying), but it's making SM gameplay and strategic more... predictable, which is great for the enemy team but not for your own one.

Scout snipers are definitely annoying in 3v3 because the expense of a fully decked-out sniper squad matters much less than in a 1v1. On the top position of the Arena maps where you're basically playing a 1v1 with two VPs, a req point, and a power point, it's seriously fucking annoying. That was just against one particular player and I'm pretty sure he was just flat out better than me so it's hard to judge based on those games though.

It's true that they arent impossible to counter, nothing is...but people believe they cost a lot to bring out their potential when how I see it they cost so little for what they do over the course of the game... I mean 2x snipers or rangers make up probably a guess about 5x or more their purchase price/potential by the bleed they cause and they single handedly can pick apart someone's economy, preventing units from getting on the field in timely fashions because you are constantly reinforcing units, just as a tax in order to sustain field presence.

Obviously the P.C. is always the center of this discussion and rightfully so because of how much he struggles against them yet their is a way to counter them (the problem is you can't always do that... or count on it) and that is by setting down a turret in a strong position and to which there isnothing they can do about it... However one has to take into consideration not every map is good a for a turret and 1 flank just to get rid of the turret by an ally player is pretty simple. Some maps are just open and easily capable of being flanked, because the map is naturally wide as opposed to narrow. I mean if you do rush t2 which is usually the best choice you obviously just go for the quick blood crusher and gain back the map control; The problem is a good 2x /3x sniper player will be aggressive... they will push you back, and cap the contested powers to compensate for that huge power investment, at which point when you get out your a.v. they are bringing out counters for your A.V. and this is very much often the case, because you have no control over the field because the snipers are bleeding models constantly.

More than anything, while personally I get that they are not "rediculous" to counter, they are rediculous in that of the sense of how annoying they are that, you have to literally completely go out of you way of anything you wanted to do because of how much respect you need to give them in t1.

All in all, they are fine as is... I 'd personally just like to see more than just that one build and actually have an enjoyable match rather than playing against such crap.. I come on to enjoy myself, not get pissed off....though frustration in anything is normal...but If I wanted to be annoyed all the time.. I'd just go watch t.v. and all the bullshit reality t.v. shows

Before I accidentally offend anyone, I'm totally ignorant on this and I literally haven't gone up versus anyone who's used scout snipers yet(because I don't play that much). When I do get a chance to play, I play the Orks or IG.

Is the main reason why people have a hard time with scout snipers because of model bleed? Would scout snipers work well vs. IG or Orks, and if so, how would one counter this kind of strategy?

To me, I feel like the snipers would be a bigger threat to the Sentinel, just like how a Ranger can pick off a properly micro'd sentinel before the IG player knows what's happened.

yeah, snipers are definitely good vs rangers, also vs any other expensive low model squads like spotters or storm troopers.
snipers are also good vs orks in being able to bleed models with every shot, while microing away to avoid any casualties. they're very good at poking the opposing force and forcing the enemy to move around and react without suffering any casualties. It's very tough to punish snipers if they're played well, which is why people complain a lot about them

Crewfinity wrote:yeah, snipers are definitely good vs rangers

Other way around.

*meant to say sentinels
oops XD

I suggested this and no one cared so I'll try again. Couldn't you just make it so that snipers have a delay between set up and their first shot? So as to not be so hit and runny? It won't change things too much but it'll just mean you cant approach snipe retreat so easily and they become more defensive.

Would be better, but I think we should wait on the proposed sniper changes made by Caeltos first.

Crewfinity wrote:*meant to say sentinels
oops XD

haha

thanks guys!

Yeah ofc Caeltos has priority but it would just be nice to get some support for my idea, which I actually think is kinda a good one for once.

Cheah18 wrote:Yeah ofc Caeltos has priority but it would just be nice to get some support for my idea, which I actually think is kinda a good one for once.

That isn't what I mean't, I mean't that we should see his idea through first as it is a more hotley discussed topic than yours. :/

I know, I never get my ideas looked at ever.

Swiftsabre wrote:I know, I never get my ideas looked at ever.

Hmm... *scratches head*

Cheah18 Your Idea right now is just a nerf. Caeltos proposal, (while still being a fat nerf for Rangers) is a tradeoff of sorts.

How do you want to balance the shooting delay? Higher firerate IF deployed?


Btw, I think the big fat nerf for Rangers might be a reason why Caeltos Idea was not well received. I don't wanna give anyone Ideas because I play Eldar, but maybe he should have first implemented the new shooting pattern, with the same dps, and in the next Patch nerfed Rangers if neccessary.

Maybe he's doing it this way because rangers are long overdue on a well deserved nerf to their performance.

That Torpid Gamer wrote:

Swiftsabre wrote:I know, I never get my ideas looked at ever.

Hmm... *scratches head*

I don't get it. :/

Dark Riku wrote:Maybe he's doing it this way because rangers are long overdue on a well deserved nerf to their performance.

I would have disagreed if it weren't for all the banshee buffs recently. Before rangers were pretty much all that eldar had, along with the shuriken, but even then the havoc was better. It was practically impossible to defeat SM without rangers.

I think the eldar T1 will be too strong with the next banshee change.

Cheah18 Your Idea right now is just a nerf.

This is true. But people complain about snipers being OP. I don't think their OP-ness comes from the actual shooting itself, but rather the whole deploy, shot, retreat thing.

The 'nerf' would actually change the way people use snipers by having them need to but thought into deploying them before the fight, making them more defensive and less abusable.