@ Steve54: I find quite impressive that you are so confident in your views so as to completely discard other opinions as being due to lack of skill or lack of experience in playing this game.

Your comments are completely dismissive of any competence or experience I might have. I am appalled.

It so happens I have been playing this game since it came out on a regular basis with a very competent group of players, and while your opinions are definitely welcome, and sharing expériences with different metagames is definitely always instructive, I do not consider in any way warranted that you would take such a tone with me.

If you want to play dictator on your chaos forums, be my guest, as the chart allows that, however do consider the ill effect this has on anyone reading this forum. This is not the first time that you try to berate posters and simply shout down any differing opinion. Do take into consideration that you may very well be wrong and treat differing opinions accordingly.

Now, more precisely:

- I have tried and used 3 - man War Walker squadrons quite effectively, and might even say that they are often better performing than 4 - man Ranger squadrons, depending on what mission you give them. Notably, in titan escort roles, or blitzguard.

- Scorpions: E-UK (which I understand you are a leading honcho of) has in print written in the Eldar codex that 3x 2+ MA was too strong and that was the reason that option was not kept, and instead the 75 cm option was. It seems from your post here that you are of a differing opinion from even Epic-UK printed opinion. Please explain yourself.

- I understand very well how Jetbikes can be used effectively. However, my argument is that there is nothing Vypers cannot do better at the moment. Again, EUK printed opinion on the matter is that 4+ armour is not overpowered except perhaps when spammed. If that is the case, the perhaps the issue could be solved with point costing instead of giving jetbikes a 5+ save which is not coherent with any other jetbike in the game (Shining Spears, Dark Eldar, etc.).

@Ginger: In several threads, you have posted that you had been against the change to jetbikes when implemented (viewtopic.php?f=24&t=19462&p=374267&hilit=Jetbikes#p374267), and in others (like here viewtopic.php?f=24&t=23771&hilit=armour+5&start=60) you stated that you regretted the changes. Do I understand that your opinion has changed? Also note that the issue we have with jetbikes is not whether they win or lose the assault, but whether they have any chance of surviving the initial shootbacks from the opposing formation to allow for supporting formations to do their work. And yes i do know about clipping assaults. So do my opponents.

In other words, if Jetbike spamming is an issue in Saim - Hann, let the problem be solved in Saim Hann (Giving the same stats as Dark Eldar jetbikes to wild riders host units would easily solve the issue).

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

Wind your neck in and stop being so melodramatic

The comments about terrain are as your findings, much like with the decimator, make no sense to anybody who plays EA using terrain and movement correctly.

3 unit formations only work as artillery or long range formations so it would great infa vastly experienced player like yourself could enlighten us?

Regarding the chaos forum where have I been a dictator except refusing to be harrasses into changes that ONLY you want or where have I been dismissive except to you when you repeat the same nonsensical point again and again, with no batreps, in direct contradiction of everybody elses experience (and get ludicrously defensive when questioned)

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

I'll ignore the obnoxious rubbish and comment only on this point:

EUK Ulani have 3 strong Hellhound formations, which are neither long-ranged nor artillery.

Tiny-Tim has several of those formations in his latest Ulani tournament army.

If you want to learn how to use such a 3 strong formation, observe him next time he plays that army.

Now concerning War walkers, a 3 strong formation I have found to be, in the coupld games my opponent allowed me to field them, excellent terminator déterrent.

Also, I have used them to garrison behind LOS blocking cover, in overwatch to counter fast advancing Kult of speed formations. Sur they get broken at the slightest shot, but that forces the oppoenent to concentrate valuable long range fire (or fast attack fire) on them and not the precious other formations, who need to be BM-less in order to execute effective counter attacks.

They then rally and hold an objective, or further act as scout screen, as broken scout formations still benefit from 10 cm ZoC.

Quite useful.

Edit: they can even sacrifice themselves after being broken to stop sustained fire orders.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

Nope - rallied formations can't hold or contest objectives

Nope - if they tried to stop sustained fire while broken by moving so their ZoC is covering the othrr unit they would be auto- destroyed as they aren't fearless

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Broken first turn, rally at end of turn, then used on second and third turn as posted.

Or if not rallied, then still used as scout screens.

Don't sound more obtuse than you are.

Edit: 3 strong Hornet squadrons are currently allowed in Saim-Hann army list, and they are not long-ranged nor artillery. SG seems to think that formation is fine.

Personally I would rather have larger formations of hornets, but Im theory crafting here, because have not tried it, nor have tried the current hornets.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

What sort of list are you using with these 3-strong formations? High activation "popcorn" type affairs or are they being used as cheap activation boosters?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

And the auto destroyed units that stop sustain?
How dare you disrespect LoM by questioning him Mike.

Mike/kyuss I'd advise you not to even get involved trying to reason with LoMs potent cocktail of arrogance and stupidity.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Don't get me wrong, as posted, I only have tried out the 3-man WW formation twice.

And when I did, I didn't take 4-man Ranger squadrons.

Also bear in mind, that I do acknowledge that having several 100 point formation options might be an issue. That is why I was proposing limiting rangers to 6-8 strong formations, if the 3-man WW formation was implemented.

From memory, a 3k list I used as such was:

- Avatar

- 8 Aspects, Wave serpents, Exarch Autarch

- Guardians, Wave Serpents

- Guardians, Wave Serpents

- 6 Rangers

- 3 War walkers

- Swords of Vaul, 2 Falcons, 2 Firestorms, 1 Fire prism

- Swords of Vaul, 2 Falcons, 2 Firestorms, 1 Fire prism

- Scorpion SHT

- Void spinner

- 6 Vypers

- 6 Vypers

- Portal


Really nothing out of the ordinary. A pretty traditional Rolling assault setup.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

His Lordship Steve54 is out of line.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

Dry your tears and try looking at your own posts

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Nope, I would still prefer a 4+ save, but I can live with them being 5+. It just means that you have to adjust how they are used; with 5+ armour they cannot so easily be used to spearhead assaults and then hope to go on to support further assaults. So you need to ensure that better armoured units are in the front of the assault (like Wave Serpents, or even the odd sacrificial Guardian), or they must be used in clipping attacks to destroy small scout formations etc.

You are correct that the perceived issue was spamming with the Saim Hann, and especially with the larger jetbike formations. Unfortunately giving the unit different stats for different armies is really not an option - and even having different points costs for formations is problematic.

On the Walkers, 3x units for 100points is "interesting" but not really practical for several reasons.

SG has already published 4x Walkers for 150 points in the Ailtoc list (and I would be interested to know if anyone has used this formation given the past discussions).

Walkers are really a "shooting" unit, something that enemy armour should fear - especially RA targets. Their goal is to ambush from behind cover or out of gates. As such they do not make good screens, they are really a 'trip wire' force that needs careful placement as you suggest. Note Terminators have nothing to fear from three AP shots by the Walkers, Lance is on their AT shot so cannot be used (Rangers are much more useful with Sniper.) Even enemy Armour will have less to fear from 6x AT shots.

Being Light Vehicles has always made Walkers vulnerable to shooting, and their abysmal save does nothing to assist. You are correct that the opponent will need to attack this 'trip wire' force, though it is likely that none will survive this - any that do will be useless except to contest objectives and even that is doubtful as Steve suggests. Yes they do have a 20cm ZoC even when broken, but that can be avoided if necessary.

So given the drawbacks and the existence of the 4x Walker formation, a 3x Walker formation is a bit superfluous.

I'm listening and digesting. Please continue.

LotM and Steve: Take it outside. Differences of opinion are how development works best, but aggression and name-calling are not.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I do sympathise with the desire to see more war walkers on the board. I would use them in a similar role (or rather, list slot) as rangers, and for me the problem really is with their points cost. I don't mean their value - for me 6@200 is fine or at least close - I mean that if I have 200 points spare I can take 2 ranger formations, and so I will always choose that option. The fantastic thing about rangers is that they can be taken at 25 point increments from 100 upwards, and it is absolutely worth taking upto around 300 points of them in a 3k list. They are therefore very efficient as list-fillers.

However, I would hate to see 100 point war walkers introduced at the expense of 100 point of rangers. I also think 3 units would be pretty useless in the roles I would want to use them in - not threatening enough as deterrents, too fragile as screens -particularly as they can't take cover. Honestly, 4 rangers on overwatch are fragile enough, so replacing that 100 point list option with an even more fragile one wouldn't appeal to me.

If war walkers were available at any other points cost I would use them instead of rangers sometimes - not every time mind you, and of course only when my "leftover" scout budget matches exactly. At any other points cost I'd be taking rangers, e.g.:
100 - 4 rangers
125 - 5 rangers
150 - 4 war walkers
175 - 7 rangers
200 - 2 x 4 rangers
... etc

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Following on from Kyrt's thoughts, I suspect War Walkers may also suffer from being the same cost as Jet Bikes. Given 200 points, and looking for something 'shooty' 6x Vypers are generally better than 6x War Walkers as they have better armour and speed, and are skimmers compared with an AT5+ Lance shot for the same cost . . . .

So two alternative spitballing thoughts here.

• We could drop the cost for the WW to 175 for 6, and even consider 4x WW for 125 with up to two additional units for +25 each.
  This would fit nicely into Kyrt's table of scouting options for different point values between 100 and 200 points
• Alternatively we could try to make them slightly more attractive by bumping the power of the Bright Lance to AT4+ on both the WW and the Wraith Lord (which would also help another underused unit).