Seer Council, what's the point?

[Lulgrim]

You can edit your previous post instead of adding new ones...

[Torpid]

They will still leap at the target.and yeah id normally keep.it to one but thats how my train of thought went atm

The price is irrelevant, the unit acts how it does precisely because it is a part of the t3 eldar roster. If eldar got nobs then I would shit my pants and quit this game.

[Bahamut]

The price is irrelevant, the unit acts how it does precisely because it is a part of the t3 eldar roster. If eldar got nobs then I would shit my pants and quit this game.

no no. Seems like people want SC to be to nobs as shees are to sluggas so even stronger than nobs :/

SC CANNOT beat terminators. Terminators cost 150/50 to reinforce, cost red to bring up and they have the worst from infantry (can be CCed) and the worst of walker vehicles (slow maneuverability, can't retreat), if SC were to beat termies then termies should be able to retreat and level.... simply wtf

[xerrol nanoha]

The price is irrelevant, the unit acts how it does precisely because it is a part of the t3 eldar roster. If eldar got nobs then I would shit my pants and quit this game.

no no. Seems like people want SC to be to nobs as shees are to sluggas so even stronger than nobs :/

SC CANNOT beat terminators. Terminators cost 150/50 to reinforce, cost red to bring up and they have the worst from infantry (can be CCed) and the worst of walker vehicles (slow maneuverability, can't retreat), if SC were to beat termies then termies should be able to retreat and level.... simply wtf

You understand that in essence, terminators are a squad of vehicles that are resistant to AV weapons? That's why they take virtually no damage from piercing and flame types and have a million health and can't retreat.

Terminators have always been ridiculously strong, and I don't know a single person here who wouldn't pay the price for something like assault terminators regardless of the race you play.

Not that I'm saying seer council should be terminators or nobz, just that you're horribly wrong in saying that terminators represent the weaknesses of infantry and vehicles rolled together, because it's quite the opposite.

:Bias mode on:
FUCK TERMINATORS I hate them and love them and then feel guilty about it.

:Bias mode off:
okay back to normal discussions.

[Vapor]

The price is irrelevant, the unit acts how it does precisely because it is a part of the t3 eldar roster. If eldar got nobs then I would shit my pants and quit this game.

no no. Seems like people want SC to be to nobs as shees are to sluggas so even stronger than nobs :/

SC CANNOT beat terminators. Terminators cost 150/50 to reinforce, cost red to bring up and they have the worst from infantry (can be CCed) and the worst of walker vehicles (slow maneuverability, can't retreat), if SC were to beat termies then termies should be able to retreat and level.... simply wtf

You understand that in essence, terminators are a squad of vehicles that are resistant to AV weapons?

They are not resistant to AV weapons, I mean they can't be snared by them but they do take the damage.

[xerrol nanoha]

no no. Seems like people want SC to be to nobs as shees are to sluggas so even stronger than nobs :/

SC CANNOT beat terminators. Terminators cost 150/50 to reinforce, cost red to bring up and they have the worst from infantry (can be CCed) and the worst of walker vehicles (slow maneuverability, can't retreat), if SC were to beat termies then termies should be able to retreat and level.... simply wtf

You understand that in essence, terminators are a squad of vehicles that are resistant to AV weapons?

They are not resistant to AV weapons, I mean they can't be snared by them but they do take the damage.

The fact that terminators have more health than all except super vehicles and monster/demons means that in general hard AV weapons like heavy melee or missile launchers or lascannons will be less effective against terminators. Much in the same way that piercing damage is less effective against heavy infantry. Sure it deals damage, but have fun spending 5 minutes poking a terminator squad with a brightlance or tankbusta squad.

Basically, many things that would counter vehicles don't also counter terminators, and many things that would counter infantry don't also counter terminators.

As for the retreat QQ that space marine/chaos players whine about, terminators pay for that with 100% suppression resistance. I would happily trade retreat on Seer Council of they couldn't be suppressed.

[Dark Riku]

SC CANNOT beat terminators. Terminators cost 150/50 to reinforce, cost red to bring up and they have the worst from infantry (can be CCed) and the worst of walker vehicles (slow maneuverability, can't retreat), if SC were to beat termies then termies should be able to retreat and level.... simply wtf

Are you saying that terminators should get buffed then? Because a seer council beats terminators in vacuum without upgrade whether abilities are used on boths sides or not. I think SM terminators should be buffed given the current state Elite is in.

You understand that in essence, terminators are a squad of vehicles that are resistant to AV weapons?

This doesn't make sense at all. AV weapons are like snipers vs them. They hit 100% because they are large targets. All AV weapons are a very good dmg source to terminators when they should not be as viable vs infantry unless it's melta.

As for the retreat QQ that space marine/chaos players whine about, terminators pay for that with 100% suppression resistance. I would happily trade retreat on Seer Council of they couldn't be suppressed.

You highly underestimate the ability to retreat I think. Changing the SC to be suppression immune but unable to retreat would be a nerf rather than a buff.

[xerrol nanoha]

You understand that in essence, terminators are a squad of vehicles that are resistant to AV weapons?

This doesn't make sense at all. AV weapons are like snipers vs them. They hit 100% because they are large targets. All AV weapons are a very good dmg source to terminators when they should not be as viable vs infantry unless it's melta.

Yes AV weapons in general hit 100% of the time against terminators, but you missed my explanation as to why I consider Terminators resistant to them. It is not the case that terminators take "reduced damage" from AV weapons, instead that the very high health of terminators combined with with burst/long cooldown or low-dps nature of AV weapons such as the lascannon, or brightlance, or tankbusta, make those types of dedicated AV weapons not as good against terminators as vehicles.

My point in that claim was that terminators have the defensive advantages of vehicles in that they aren't as threatened by weapons that are very strong against infantry or weapons meant to destroy vehicles.

The important distinction is plasma and power melee type weapons which are the best options for fighting super heavy infantry in general, however Terminators are well enough known for their incredibly high health that under all circumstances they are threatened less by those weapon types than any other infantry squad in the game.

Hence they have the advantages of both, and the weaknesses of neither. I do not consider the inability to retreat terminators a weakness, as frankly they take so little damage from most ranged sources that the ability to retreat would make them nearly invincible.

As for the retreat QQ that space marine/chaos players whine about, terminators pay for that with 100% suppression resistance. I would happily trade retreat on Seer Council of they couldn't be suppressed.

You highly underestimate the ability to retreat I think. Changing the SC to be suppression immune but unable to retreat would be a nerf rather than a buff.

Cool, I'd be willing to admit I underestimate it, but in the end I think that 100% suppression resistance with fleet of foot is better than retreating and fleet of foot. It would simply mean Eldar players would need to treat SC differently, but I do not think it would necessarily be a nerf.

You should tell by now that I'm biased against terminators I interpret terminators as a squad equivalent of a nonexclusive super unit that can be deployed instantly anywhere on the battlefield and frankly once you have them you shouldn't lose the game (ceteris paribus or unless your opponent gets them too), especially when I watch missile launcher terminators kill landraiders or lightning claw terminators kill great unclean ones. It's disgusting to me. (although it's mosty just because terminators are massively supply efficient)

[Torpid]

Funny how nobody seems to have addressed my post.

Also please don't try to apply any concept of ceteris paribus to a real time strategy game.

[Forestradio]

wat?

I don't understand your point at all xerrol nanaha.

Lascannons and other AV weapons are basically sniper rifles vs terminators. Losing 100+ damage per shot on a squad that has limited on the field healing is a pretty big deal.

"Advantages of both and the weaknesses of neither"

Um not being able to retreat to is weakness (despite your claim to the contrary). In fact, it's the weakness that makes them balanced. Their other weakness is their lack of mobility, which once again helps make them balanced.

"once you have terminators you shouldn't lose the game"

what if both sides get terminators? Who loses then?

Finally:

cyclone missile launcher terminators will take quite a few barrages to kill even the weakest landraider variant (the phobos).

lightning claw terminators are a hard counter to the GUO yes, but that's why chaos also get lightning claw terminators of their own that cost less........

[Asmon]

Funny how nobody seems to have addressed my post.

That might be because nothing within your post was interesting to highlight. If I had to sum it up that would give: lol SC should not exist lol.

But SC does exist, because of Caeltos's will. And SC underperforms. No unit in this game should underperfom. Hence the discussion.

[Sub_Zero]

Torpid's post was adequate and correct. I tend to agree with him. And I tend to disagree with you who think that the seer council underperforms. They definetely don't. Also they got reduced cost which is fine. It is like a FC or an APO player complains about the venerable dread because he can't maintain it (let's imagine that this walker was given for them). Be glad that the unique unit was given for each Eldar commander.

[Torpid]

Funny how nobody seems to have addressed my post.

That might be because nothing within your post was interesting to highlight. If I had to sum it up that would give: lol SC should not exist lol.

But SC does exist, because of Caeltos's will. And SC underperforms. No unit in this game should underperfom. Hence the discussion.

No way, I have to disagree with you on a very fundamental level here. If Caeltos was absolutely adamant that for whatever reason that he wanted tyranid leaders in the game (i.e. they were bugged and couldn't be implemented properly) but people still deemed then to be OP by their very nature, then surely it would be better to have that unit in a UP role than a OP role. Essentially where the nature of the unit/ability is poorly designed and frankly unnecessary then it ought to under-perform because if it were to do anything else then it would break the race. Now whether or not that applies to seer council is something to be debated elsewhere. Why is that the case? Well Asmondeus, it's the case because 80% of my post wasn't even to do with that, it was an elaboration on exactly why seer council are so shit compared to nobs.

Sum up the second half and you get something rather different as a conclusion: Eldar have an extremely defensively powerful tech-tree, especially in t3 which is where seers are located. Eldar don't need a line breaker unit, nor do they need SHI infantry support as they have the avatar (which itself is a unit that is not meant to line-break, but to counter-initiate, hence its abilities and the aura).

[FiSH]

Pretty sure t3 leaders were removed because the synapse was not working out as intended, not because such idea could not be balanced...

[Torpid]

I was only using that as an example, I didn't say that it was inherently flawed in its design, nor did I say that inherent design flaw was the reason for its removal, in fact I actually said the reason for its removal was "hey were bugged and couldn't be implemented properly".

[[TLV]Soul_Drinkers]

I did not ask for a buff. I asked for a reasonable price drop to the same price as terminators. That is all otherwise the unit is perfectly fine if the price was made to correspond with there usefullness

[xerrol nanoha]

wat?

I don't understand your point at all xerrol nanaha.

Lascannons and other AV weapons are basically sniper rifles vs terminators. Losing 100+ damage per shot on a squad that has limited on the field healing is a pretty big deal.

"Advantages of both and the weaknesses of neither"

Um not being able to retreat to is weakness (despite your claim to the contrary). In fact, it's the weakness that makes them balanced. Their other weakness is their lack of mobility, which once again helps make them balanced.

"once you have terminators you shouldn't lose the game"

what if both sides get terminators? Who loses then?

Finally:

cyclone missile launcher terminators will take quite a few barrages to kill even the weakest landraider variant (the phobos).

lightning claw terminators are a hard counter to the GUO yes, but that's why chaos also get lightning claw terminators of their own that cost less........

I explained most of this in my post actually

I'll start off by saying that, although slow firing av weapons are similar in design to lascannons (in that they are higher than average on hit damage with a really low rate of fire), you could only compare sniper rifles to infantry and av lascannons etc to terminators if it were the case that lascannons did like 500 damage per shot.

My point on this was that terminators capitalize on a huge health pool that makes no other weapon comparison behave the same way toward a terminator. To that end, you could just as well use sniper rifles as lascannons against terminators and they would both be equally effective or ineffective depending on your point of view.

Mine is ineffective, yours is effective. Which is fine because the high hp of terminators puts them in a position where there isn't a clear hard counter damage type that is reliable, and in most cases the damage type becomes less relevant compared to the safety or survivability of the unit you intend to use against terminators.

Secondly, I was only half serious in saying whomever gets terminators wins the game (even though I feel there is some clear merit to that statement, I've watched games from beta 8 where space marine players have been struggling or behind the entire game, and then turn it around instantly to win once terminators are on the field), and as for what happens if both players get? well see what I said for yourself:

once you have them you shouldn't lose the game (ceteris paribus or unless your opponent gets them too)

I use ceteris paribus to say both players being equal in skill and having made minimal game-altering mistakes, and I add that this doesn't work (obvioiusly, logically) if you and your opponent has them, but in that case it is still true that 'a' player who got the terminators wins

My last point with the great unclean one and the landraider, is that I feel that terminators offer superior value and advantages to super units in general, and that they should not do so. Super units are that, the fact that terminator squads can make an even larger impact on a game than super units do, and that they're easier to use and you can have multiple of them, just makes them designed too well.

Sure you can balance units with numbers and costs and what not, but in general every unit either works or it doesn't, and for terminators to "work" with their current design, they can't be anything other than broken 100% of the time.
... and that's my opinion of terminators. However, seeing that the community doesn't give a lot of f***s abotu terminators except when they wish they were better, I mostly just nod my head and say "uh huh, yeah, totally" because lets face it: terminators win games, and nobody wants to give up something that lets them win.

Anyway back to the topic of nonterminator units that don't 1v1 every other super unit and don't have a million health and are actually counterable with ease: The seer council.

( I mean hey, if you replaced every terminator squad with a seer council squad, you would feel ripped off too! especially if you could only get one squad also! )

-
-
-
-
-

So anyway, I feel like the most appropriate comparison is that:
Banshees are to Seer Council as
Assault marines are to Veterans

However, the problem is that the Seer Council doesn't fill an aggressive role in the eldar army in the same way that Fire Prisms or the Avatar do, so in most cases the Seer Council is that squad you will get later "after" you have your core tier 3 aggro units, IF you still have supply left over.

Since the bottom line is that the Seer Council ONLY does the same things that fleetness banshees do, and while they do it better (as they should for their price and high tier), they can be considered a frivolous purchase if Banshees are still alive to fullfill that role and there are other units that would provide more strength to the eldar army in that moment (i.e. prism or avatar etc etc).

So, although I could admit that within a complete and zen unit composition, the Seer council might pull its weight, I still don't see any reason to get them, as they don't fullfill any clear purpose or offer any unique strength.

[Faultron]

I did not ask for a buff. I asked for a reasonable price drop to the same price as terminators. That is all otherwise the unit is perfectly fine if the price was made to correspond with there usefullness

price drop can be made to maximum 625 or 600 req in my opinion but not more, 550 is nothing for a SC, maybe power cost change to 90.(without any changes)
Vanguard cost 650/105 so SC should cost like dat.dunno the MU between those 2 btw, so it would be cool to know before we suggesting price drop Souldrinkers.
if Vanguard can beat SC with 2 KB i think SC could cost 600 req/ 90 power, otherwise not rly.Vanguard is important MU, when whinking about SC.(ASM-banshee), even if players dont buy vanguard vs eldar should be considered i think.

[MaxPower]

Sure you can balance units with numbers and costs and what not, but in general every unit either works or it doesn't, and for terminators to "work" with their current design, they can't be anything other than broken 100% of the time.
... and that's my opinion of terminators. However, seeing that the community doesn't give a lot of f***s abotu terminators except when they wish they were better, I mostly just nod my head and say "uh huh, yeah, totally" because lets face it: terminators win games, and nobody wants to give up something that lets them win.

Even though its totally off topic and I'm a Space Marine player, but Terminators can't retreat, meaning if u don't push the enemy off/crush him and you have to retreat, your terminators are in a bad spot, because:

a. they can't retreat
b. they are slow as hell
c. they take lots and lots of damage from almost everything

Point a + b are especially devastating for all the melee terminator variants, because you either teleport em in and might get shredded by all the other faster melee squads (if you didn't upgrade them with claws) or they will die from melee walker and stuff (if you upgraded them with claws).

If you didn't teleport em in, they will draw enemy fire on themselves and take a lot of damage until they've reached their target.

Meaning to capitalize the raw power of melee terminators you need a librarian.

Anyways, terminators are not broken nor are the op, even though I get the feeling u think that they are.

[Sub_Zero]

Terminators make a huge impact only when they perform the deep strike. When they get low on health they have to slowly go back to base and slowly heal there. And it takes a lot of time.

[Dark Riku]

Some of you think that Terminators are OP and at the same time that the SC is UP.
SC eats terminators up while leveling too losing 3-4 models in the process! °_O
In the current meta of Elite normal terminators are a joke and are easily disposed of. Some plasma, power melee,... hits are all that is needed for them to run back to base or die. Unless you are the chaos variant with an anti-all ranged weapon ~~

[Faultron]

Some of you think that Terminators are OP and at the same time that the SC is UP.
SC eats terminators up while leveling too losing 3-4 models in the process! °_O
In the current meta of Elite normal terminators are a joke and are easily disposed of. Some plasma, power melee,... hits are all that is needed for them to run back to base or die. Unless you are the chaos variant with an anti-all ranged weapon ~~

i think it is normal that SC beat ranged terminators in 1v1 fight.

[Forestradio]

Some of you think that Terminators are OP and at the same time that the SC is UP.
SC eats terminators up while leveling too losing 3-4 models in the process! °_O
In the current meta of Elite normal terminators are a joke and are easily disposed of. Some plasma, power melee,... hits are all that is needed for them to run back to base or die. Unless you are the chaos variant with an anti-all ranged weapon ~~

i think it is normal that SC beat ranged terminators in 1v1 fight.

seer council hard counter ranged terminators. No question.

They can hold their own vs hammernators (paladins and non LC assault terms) and will do much better depending on their leveling (good basic stats means that leveling is a snowball for them).

LC termies and GK termies (with halberds) turn them into mincemeat, as they should. LC termies also turn nobz into mincemeat. They're supposed to be the best infantry killing melee unit in the game.

[Faultron]

and how is the SC vs vanguard MU? (i asked this 2. time xD)

[Forestradio]

and how is the SC vs vanguard MU? (i asked this 2. time xD)

vanguards have 1800 health, do 60+45+40 power melee dps (no bonus damage to normal infantry armor of SC).

seer council have 2500 health, do 200*1.3 dps to vanguards.

Seer council will wipe the floor with them, unless vans get lucky with merciless or special attacks

[Faultron]

and how is the SC vs vanguard MU? (i asked this 2. time xD)

vanguards have 1800 health, do 60+45+40 power melee dps (no bonus damage to normal infantry armor of SC).

seer council have 2500 health, do 200*1.3 dps to vanguards.

Seer council will wipe the floor with them, unless vans get lucky with merciless or special attacks

but vanguards can do the same trick as asm can vs bansheez?
i mean jump+kb and merciless to win.

[Torpid]

Seers have too much health for it to matter.

[Faultron]

then i think there is nothing to change for SC the cost and the reinforce tweak was perfectly done, to how they perform. (650/100, 78/12 from 700/100 80/15)

[Nurland]

Banshees have ~170 hp per model apart from the 200hp exarch and SC have 500 hp per model. So SC don't really give two shits about getting hit by merciless strike (if it is just a squad vs squad).

[Faultron]

Banshees have ~170 hp per model apart from the 200hp exarch and SC have 500 hp per model. So SC don't really give two shits about getting hit by merciless strike (if it is just a squad vs squad).

yes but sheez cost in power 40% less then asm
and getting another regular infantry armor type in T3 is not a very good thing.
eldar need atleast 2 vehicles in their army or Avatar, otherwise enemy need only piercing/flame damage whole game.