Eldar detection and Destructor
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Inferno damage!?! - slightly increased damage against hi while preserving damage multiplier against normal infantry means you could reduce damage output
(also plasma damage remains good against nids because of warriors)
(also plasma damage remains good against nids because of warriors)
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Pretty much the only destructors i've dodged by worshipping have been as Lulgrim pointed by guessing when it's coming and worshipping the squad based on a hunch.
#noobcodex
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
i guess to sum up, there are 3 choices here:
1. decrease the damage of destructor, while changing its damage type
WL's starting ability is definitely not as good as the other two eldar commanders, and does not scale (while the other two commander's starting abilities scale very well), i do not think changing the damage type alone does the justice if the damage is decreased. while - arguably - destructor is easy to hit, it will only be fair to increase the damage radius (to keep its effectiveness against nids/ig/orks/eldar where squads spread out more) if the damage is decreased.
2. spread heretics apart
this one, as caeltos pointed out, seems to be tricky.
3. don't do anything
that's always an option
1. decrease the damage of destructor, while changing its damage type
WL's starting ability is definitely not as good as the other two eldar commanders, and does not scale (while the other two commander's starting abilities scale very well), i do not think changing the damage type alone does the justice if the damage is decreased. while - arguably - destructor is easy to hit, it will only be fair to increase the damage radius (to keep its effectiveness against nids/ig/orks/eldar where squads spread out more) if the damage is decreased.
2. spread heretics apart
this one, as caeltos pointed out, seems to be tricky.
3. don't do anything
that's always an option
><%FiSH((@>
- Ace of Swords
- Posts: 1493
- Joined: Thu 14 Mar, 2013 7:49 am
- Location: Terra
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
1. decrease the damage of destructor, while changing its damage type
WL's starting ability is definitely not as good as the other two eldar commanders, and does not scale (while the other two commander's starting abilities scale very well), i do not think changing the damage type alone does the justice if the damage is decreased. while - arguably - destructor is easy to hit, it will only be fair to increase the damage radius (to keep its effectiveness against nids/ig/orks/eldar where squads spread out more) if the damage is decreased
In all honestly destructor is a very good starting ability, you can pretty much take 40% of hp of any starting squad in a shot (gm,sluggas,shootas and so on) and about 30% of the Tacts which is alot on a faction that is not supposed to bleed.
Also it's quite tanky itself and that starting leap is without value, it's extremely powerful especially if you control it as you should.
In all of this the destructor doesn't scale well not much because of the damage but because later on the WL prefers to invest energy in other things (immolator,shield,ethereal slash,warp throw,channeling runes,cloak of shadows and so on).
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Ace of Swords wrote:-Detection
Anyone finds the eldar very lacking detection-wise? I mean rangers are amazing in many and many aspects and they are extremely good in many MUs but the fact that they are a 'setup team' makes them quite vulnerable and not very movable, thus you can't really move them all over the map searching for mines/explosive/gates, aswell since they are the only form of detection for the eldar in a MU like eldar vs IG they don't perform that well and their role would be to mostly babysit the falcon or other vehicles of the eldar.
So would it be too good if the warlocks of the Dire Avenger squads had detection? or maybe some other squad/squad leader?
It sucks having to buy ranger just for detection when other races can get away with it by buying 75/25 squad leader.
But as a detector rangers are perfectly capable of doing the job even if they are (not really) sort of setup team. They have the longest sight range and the longest detection range in the game. So even if they have to hang back a bit their detection range compensates for it (and btw they can infiltrate themselves to scout and detect without being shot apart.
But hey it could be worse, you might have to spend 400/40 to buy a detector.
Anything beyond that TL;DR.
Swift I: You're not a nerd, you're just a very gifted social spastic
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
400/40 for a melee counter, good ranged damage, suppression/anti blob+Riku's favourite thing improvised explosive. And detection.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
@ace
well, doesn't look like you're disagreeing with either of the points i made about destructor, those being 1. not as good as starting abilities of other eldar commanders and 2. not scaling well (in the absolute scale as well as compared to the starting abilities of the other eldar commanders)
well, doesn't look like you're disagreeing with either of the points i made about destructor, those being 1. not as good as starting abilities of other eldar commanders and 2. not scaling well (in the absolute scale as well as compared to the starting abilities of the other eldar commanders)
><%FiSH((@>
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Kvek wrote:400/40 for a melee counter, good ranged damage, suppression/anti blob+Riku's favourite thing improvised explosive. And detection.
And completely useless against gate spamming & full-army-infiltrate abusing farseer.
Anyway if you don't fucking want/need to buy catachan 400/40 just to get the detection is bad joke compared to 75/25 upgrade on your t1 unit that gives you detection + a great, permanent buff on the unit.
Swift I: You're not a nerd, you're just a very gifted social spastic
- Ace of Swords
- Posts: 1493
- Joined: Thu 14 Mar, 2013 7:49 am
- Location: Terra
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Toilailee wrote:Kvek wrote:400/40 for a melee counter, good ranged damage, suppression/anti blob+Riku's favourite thing improvised explosive. And detection.
And completely useless against gate spamming & full-army-infiltrate abusing farseer.
Anyway if you don't fucking want/need to buy catachan 400/40 just to get the detection is bad joke compared to 75/25 upgrade on your t1 unit that gives you detection + a great, permanent buff on the unit.
The difference is that catas are good in basically every MU and you will almost always have them on the field (next patch spotters will detect aswell) meaning that in every game you play you will have a detector on the field even if it's not it's primary role, the thing with rangers is that in alot of cases you would rather not get them for a reason of the other, but you are still forced in getting them to not get your shuris/WG tied up or to babysti vehicles, meaning that they won't go around much, meanwhile catas are a pretty good capping unit as there are only a few units which can beat them in 1v1 plus while they go around capping they can place the awesome improved explosives.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Honestly, I prefer not to have Catas, especially in 3v3 games. What now?
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Fri 22 Feb, 2013 12:10 pm
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Lag wrote:Honestly, I prefer not to have Catas, especially in 3v3 games. What now?
That's a sound argument.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
dance commander wrote:Lag wrote:Honestly, I prefer not to have Catas, especially in 3v3 games. What now?
That's a sound argument.
Problem solved, spotters are getting detection next patch.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Ace of Swords wrote:In all of this the destructor doesn't scale well not much because of the damage but because later on the WL prefers to invest energy in other things (immolator,shield,ethereal slash,warp throw,channeling runes,cloak of shadows and so on).
It's good early - although I still think it's weak against heavy armor, 40 energy for Robe is more valuable against Spess for instance.
But the scaling is really quite bad, it's not even "only" overshadowed... Even if you had Spamidence up you don't usually bother throwing Destructors because on leveled/advanced units it equals a fart in their general direction. Compare this with Guide in T3.
Destructor could be made to scale with Warlock levels (consider how Heal works).
EDIT: What I'm going at is Destructor should continue competing for energy expenditure with other abilities even in late game.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
FiSH wrote:3. don't do anything
<3Kvek wrote:400/40 for a melee counter, good ranged damage, suppression/anti blob+Riku's favourite thing improvised explosive. And detection.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Ace of Swords wrote: you will almost always have them on the field .
I'm sorry, but that argument is just stupid in the way that it promotes cookie-cutter-bo-only play. Also in my case catas have never fit my playstyle and the point is that I hate having to go out of my way to buy 400/40 unit when I need detection. It's essentially the same thing with eldar detection and in much rarer cases with tyranids if nid player is playing without any warriors.
Dark Riku wrote:<3Kvek wrote:+Riku's favourite thing improvised explosive.
y u no get detection+nade+more hp&dps for just 75/25 when you see catas have demo man (x/8 models).
Swift I: You're not a nerd, you're just a very gifted social spastic
- Ace of Swords
- Posts: 1493
- Joined: Thu 14 Mar, 2013 7:49 am
- Location: Terra
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
I'm sorry, but that argument is just stupid in the way that it promotes cookie-cutter-bo-only play.
It's not simply because there is a reason if they are 'cookie cutter builds' you want to play 5 GMs? fine, but don't expect the flexability of the cookie cutters, these builds simply provide the most cost effective/flexible in terms of av/af and capping power, in the case of Catas they are good against everything and in the next patch spotters will also detect, basically 2 units out of 3 from your T1.5 which also cover fundamental roles will be able to detect, and thus you have no repercursions in getting them.
tl;dr
catas and spotters are always wanted, rangers aren't.
- Nuclear Arbitor
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: Tue 12 Feb, 2013 2:56 am
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
5gm does a shit ton of damage.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Nuclear Arbitor wrote:5gm does a shit ton of damage.
To assault cannon dreadnoughts.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Cuz detection doesn't make the bombs not go off when you are retreating over it :pToilailee wrote:Dark Riku wrote:<3Kvek wrote:+Riku's favourite thing improvised explosive.
y u no get detection+nade+more hp&dps for just 75/25 when you see catas have demo man (x/8 models).
And you can't easily tell if the catas are upgraded unless you can count to 8 so fast when in battle....
And when I see catachan I get detection asap. ^^
The opposite is more true.Ace of Swords wrote:tl;dr
catas and spotters are always wanted, rangers aren't.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
lol i like how nobody said that for the smoke+explosive u need to pay.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Rather than giving spotters detection I'd like it on sent in T2 for 75/25, just detection and no additional buffs. It's what I suggested to cael few years ago and I don't see how it would be op in comparison to shoot nob/scout srgt/tic ac.
Edit: And you can remove the increased proximity detection sent has.
Edit: And you can remove the increased proximity detection sent has.
Swift I: You're not a nerd, you're just a very gifted social spastic
- Ace of Swords
- Posts: 1493
- Joined: Thu 14 Mar, 2013 7:49 am
- Location: Terra
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
All in all it doesn't sound bad, i wouldn't mind if it had it.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Post in IG thread? Wait I'll do it :pToilailee wrote:Rather than giving spotters detection I'd like it on sent in T2 for 75/25, just detection and no additional buffs. It's what I suggested to cael few years ago and I don't see how it would be op in comparison to shoot nob/scout srgt/tic ac.
That actually seems like an underwhelming upgrade.
Could probably start out for 50/20.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
That's actually perfect. I give my full approval.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
To be honest, I'm not completely sold on the sentinel with the detection benefit. It's a single entity, and it can either be completely super-useful, both in terms of bleed & pressure potential. Whereas other detectors are slightly more oriented into skirmish oriented combat-warfares.
It's sometimes easy to force off the detectors on Shoota+Nobs or Scout Sergeants (etc) then it is to force off a single entity with healing/repair potential that has the potential to continous put up the pressure.
But at the same time, I'd like to know how the overall potential of said things (pressure/bleed) performs in the existing meta, compared to the likes of retail sentinel.
It's sometimes easy to force off the detectors on Shoota+Nobs or Scout Sergeants (etc) then it is to force off a single entity with healing/repair potential that has the potential to continous put up the pressure.
But at the same time, I'd like to know how the overall potential of said things (pressure/bleed) performs in the existing meta, compared to the likes of retail sentinel.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
While I agree with Caeltos that the fact it's a single entity gives it great fight presence in the early game, and by extension pretty much would secure detection for the early game fights, I think the Sentinel would very much lose out on utility as a detector in the mid to late game. It has been noted before that Rangers have to become passive due to their frailty, but I think it would be more true of Sentinels than Rangers.
Rangers and scouts have infiltration and mobility to secure their detection role, while Shootas with Nob leader are really quite tanky for most of the game, or at least it's relatively hard to lose them up until the late game, and besides you can draw aggro away from them with your tougher units (ignoring that Orks have Kommandos to fall back on). Warriors belong around the action anyway, if not necessarily in melee, and the same is true of AC tics.
A sentinel on the other hand, by the very fact it no longer has purchasable armor, shifts from a skirmishing/tanking role to a fire support role, due to the fact that the 800 heavy armor no longer counts for much in the mid to late game. This makes the sentinel missile the perfect upgrade to ensure you can maximise its game impact without having to charge in with silly stomps, which, imo, makes the sentinel missile a must buy if you have the resources. Due to the fact that they are squishy in the late game, and that they are fire support, you would have to put the sentinel at risk to really use it efficiently as a detector.
In short, making the sentinel a detector would make it too dominating a detector in the early game, considering its map presence and speed, yet even less relevant than the average detector in the late game, where one would probably have to rely on Catachans anyway. So I don't see the point of putting the detector upgrade on the sentinel.
Rangers and scouts have infiltration and mobility to secure their detection role, while Shootas with Nob leader are really quite tanky for most of the game, or at least it's relatively hard to lose them up until the late game, and besides you can draw aggro away from them with your tougher units (ignoring that Orks have Kommandos to fall back on). Warriors belong around the action anyway, if not necessarily in melee, and the same is true of AC tics.
A sentinel on the other hand, by the very fact it no longer has purchasable armor, shifts from a skirmishing/tanking role to a fire support role, due to the fact that the 800 heavy armor no longer counts for much in the mid to late game. This makes the sentinel missile the perfect upgrade to ensure you can maximise its game impact without having to charge in with silly stomps, which, imo, makes the sentinel missile a must buy if you have the resources. Due to the fact that they are squishy in the late game, and that they are fire support, you would have to put the sentinel at risk to really use it efficiently as a detector.
In short, making the sentinel a detector would make it too dominating a detector in the early game, considering its map presence and speed, yet even less relevant than the average detector in the late game, where one would probably have to rely on Catachans anyway. So I don't see the point of putting the detector upgrade on the sentinel.
Righteousness does not make right
- Nuclear Arbitor
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: Tue 12 Feb, 2013 2:56 am
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
i'd also like to caution against giving to many units detection as it hard counters infiltration. once detected a unit gets nothing out of infiltration; they become more obvious and generally drain energy. to much prevalence of detection makes units like melta stromtroopers or the CS's worship nearly useless. i find that there is already an issue with nids because of the prevalence of warriors and the way that nids often blob. two detectors per race, if needed, is probably fine but more then that and the value of infiltration becomes questionable.
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Codex wrote:In short, making the sentinel a detector would make it too dominating a detector in the early game
That's why I suggested a T2 upgrade.
Swift I: You're not a nerd, you're just a very gifted social spastic
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
Codex wrote:While I agree with Caeltos that the fact it's a single entity gives it great fight presence in the early game, and by extension pretty much would secure detection for the early game fights, I think the Sentinel would very much lose out on utility as a detector in the mid to late game. It has been noted before that Rangers have to become passive due to their frailty, but I think it would be more true of Sentinels than Rangers.
Rangers and scouts have infiltration and mobility to secure their detection role, while Shootas with Nob leader are really quite tanky for most of the game, or at least it's relatively hard to lose them up until the late game, and besides you can draw aggro away from them with your tougher units (ignoring that Orks have Kommandos to fall back on). Warriors belong around the action anyway, if not necessarily in melee, and the same is true of AC tics.
A sentinel on the other hand, by the very fact it no longer has purchasable armor, shifts from a skirmishing/tanking role to a fire support role, due to the fact that the 800 heavy armor no longer counts for much in the mid to late game. This makes the sentinel missile the perfect upgrade to ensure you can maximise its game impact without having to charge in with silly stomps, which, imo, makes the sentinel missile a must buy if you have the resources. Due to the fact that they are squishy in the late game, and that they are fire support, you would have to put the sentinel at risk to really use it efficiently as a detector.
In short, making the sentinel a detector would make it too dominating a detector in the early game, considering its map presence and speed, yet even less relevant than the average detector in the late game, where one would probably have to rely on Catachans anyway. So I don't see the point of putting the detector upgrade on the sentinel.
T2 upgrade.
Isn't detection a defensive thing and so I don't really see where you are going with the sentinels must become fire-support in t2, therefore they shouldn't be detectors sort of thing. Besides the way in which the IG army works is that in t1 engagements are opened by either a hero or the sentinel, whereas in t2 engagements are opened by a hero, a manticore/chimera/ogryns, followed by spotters if they are present, then catachans, then GM, then the sentinel. I can't really think of any army whose infiltrated units would threaten chimera/ogryns so badly that IG couldn't wait a few seconds for the sentinel to get into the position of catachans/spotters to detect, other than melta stormtroopers but in IG mirrors GM usually lead the charge since suppression/aoe is less of an issue and so letting them risk losing a few models is obviously a cost efficient way of opening, compared to sending in ogryns...
Also in t2 I would trade a catachan squad for a upgraded sentinel any day, in any MU other than tyranids.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
Re: Eldar detection and Destructor
It's more that if we set the detection range to standard (i.e. 30), as opposed to Rangers' (i.e. 40), the sentinel being a single entity makes it more vulnerable to being killed off quickly.
It's like, imagine IG vs Chaos Sorc. If you move the Sentinel up to detect, you might eat a TCSM and Lashavoc to the face, losing the sentinel for sure. You just have no idea what's in there until it's too late because T1 standard engagement range is 38 and that only gets larger as the game goes on.
The fact that the Sentinel isn't a detector now means that it can sit at the rear of the formation, much like fire prisms.
I know you suggested T2 upgrade Toil, but I still think it makes little sense for a fire support unit to have it.
It's like, imagine IG vs Chaos Sorc. If you move the Sentinel up to detect, you might eat a TCSM and Lashavoc to the face, losing the sentinel for sure. You just have no idea what's in there until it's too late because T1 standard engagement range is 38 and that only gets larger as the game goes on.
The fact that the Sentinel isn't a detector now means that it can sit at the rear of the formation, much like fire prisms.
I know you suggested T2 upgrade Toil, but I still think it makes little sense for a fire support unit to have it.
Righteousness does not make right
Return to “Balance Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests