Corvus Fortis Posted February 21, 2018 Author Share Posted February 21, 2018 Reapers are cancer for Eldar themselves. They have so much good and above good units, but this broken stuff is maxed in every list. If reapers and flyers are a downded, it will be possible to compete, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclusiarch Darius Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Yeah I agree, I think we're exactly back at the point in 7th where Riptides and Wraithknights ruined their respective armies. It's a unit that distorts the entire faction around it. Reminds me of how GMDK's are for us. Bartali 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 As someone who's just got the All Clear I support the use of that name for Dark Reapers! :P Corvus Fortis 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvus Fortis Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 I'd agrue that there is no reason to take more than 1-2 GMNDK, because one in 4++ will be instantly focused and brought down, unless you are great at making 4++, while 30 Reapers in 3 serpents are standard for any top competitive list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclusiarch Darius Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 I just meant more like it warps the entire faction around them. Like how in 5th, 6th and 7th, everything was compared to Dreadknights. And particularly in 7th, GW went the completely stupid route of nerfing everything else whilst buffing DK's. Same again now, where they have made a DK 2.0 I agree GMDK's are definitely far more balanced, especially because they're a huge investment and still die to lascannon, plus their very nature puts them in severe danger (whilst Dark Reapers can camp back and just obliterate stuff safely behind screening units). Yeah it's sad that it is such an auto-take, in both cases. I would much prefer GW stopped doing dumb stuff like this every edition. Dark Reapers didn't have to be an auto-take, they just needed to be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schlitzaf Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 A unit being a warping in codex isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s a bad thing when that unit isn’t a troop choice. However said troop choice, should also be warping not due to being superMurder, do everything fun times. But because it’s a flexible unit that can be adequately built to handle a variety of tactical and strategic scenerios. Crusader/GreyHunters/Strike Squads/BSS for example are that. You have to ask “the more focused specialized variant or the more generic flexible?” They provide the benchmark that everything else is reasonably derived and compared to. They do often overshadow their specialized Cousins but said cousins still have a place. Strikes and GK less so, but Templars/Sisters/Hunters still take things like Devies/Retributors/LongFangs etc. Warping is fine when that unit provides a benchmark, that enables reasonable cost/benefit analysis. Which units like ThunderWolves, Dreadknights etc do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Nope you cannot equate strike squads to dark reapers. And The super crutch wraithknight / riptide units are bad for an army. When you get known as GK = NDK you know there's something broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schlitzaf Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 ...... Gentle, that is not what I said. What I said if there is any one unit in codex, you want to be the ‘clutch’ or ‘spam’ unit, you’d want it be the basic troop unit for the army. Because every other unit is derived from your basic troop. So when your listbuilding, and make unit comparisons, trying to decide what unit to take. Tl;dr Having the basic troop be the baseline you compare too instead of (insert OP Unit here), is good for the codex overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 It doesn't matter what slot the op unit is in. Troop. Heavy. HQ. A single op unit skews the whole army out of proportion around it. Helycon 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danarc Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 There is a deep difference. Strike squads have no competitor in codex because other units are not so useful. Dark Reaper are OP so even if in the Eldar codex there are other good units people use DR. Corvus Fortis 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helycon Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 There is a deep difference. Strike squads have no competitor in codex because other units are not so useful. Dark Reaper are OP so even if in the Eldar codex there are other good units people use DR.People take Supreme Command detachments with GMNDK because they're that good. People do the exact same with Dark Reapers, T'au Commanders and used to do the same with Brimstone Horrors. If something is good people will spam it because there is very little tax this edition. In 7th, you needed to add some other units as well to fill a detachment, such as a Battle Demi Company. Was it better? Maybe, it was more diverse to be sure. I think a restriction on unit type may be a better option to make sure people actually pick stuff. If you can only have one unit of Dark Reapers, you need to fill the rest of your points with other units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waking Dreamer Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) Limiting a GK army to one GMNDK means that it will die to say the very common lascannon in 1 turn before it does anything significant (if at all), against the opposing army. I think there can be a difference between an army's best unit...and an OP unit in the meta (strong against other armies strongest units). An OP unit is by default the army's strongest unit...BUT not all armies strongest units are actually OP. The latter scenario just means the other units in that codex are mainly average or below average or worse. Limiting a weaker codex to just ONE of their best unit means they get stomped even harder by stronger codexes. Edited February 23, 2018 by Waking Dreamer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helycon Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 The point is, people will spam optimal units and never touch the others. This gets exacerbated by the option to soup it up. A GMNDK isn't a bad option if you have a lot of guard units. It hits hard, is difficult to kill, and pretty mobile with a teleporter as an option. With the lack of restrictions, people that only care to win, will spam :cuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skarn Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 For what its worth, i only field a single gmdk in a game, simply because there is only one in a company, and my gk are the 7th company. LuisMars 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Mytre Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Limiting a GK army to one GMNDK means that it will die to say the very common lascannon in 1 turn before it does anything significant (if at all), against the opposing army. I think there can be a difference between an army's best unit...and an OP unit in the meta (strong against other armies strongest units). An OP unit is by default the army's strongest unit...BUT not all armies strongest units are actually OP. The latter scenario just means the other units in that codex are mainly average or below average or worse. Limiting a weaker codex to just ONE of their best unit means they get stomped even harder by stronger codexes. The limitation should be 1 GMNDK per detachment, and then buff NDK to make them good. +2 WS/BS for one, ignore "heavy" penalties, potentially increase their invulnerable save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holier Than Thou Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) @skarn Me too. I have a standard Grand Master and a GMNDK which I have modelled to have the Dreadnought sarcophagus instead of the baby carrier. My fluff is that the standard GM has been promoted after the previous one was grievously wounded but, because of his position, he was interred in a Dreadknight, rather than a Dreadnought. Edited February 23, 2018 by Holier Than Thou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 There should never be any limitations. Buff the underperforming units instead. Make unit choice a *choice*, rather than must haves and must nots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Mytre Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 There should never be any limitations. Buff the underperforming units instead. Make unit choice a *choice*, rather than must haves and must nots. No, limitations are good if done correctly. Fluff is a great reason for limitations, as is balance. The reason for this one is fluff and balance. For the same reason named characters have limitations, you're not going to have 3/8 Grand Masters rock up on a battlefield with no other GK support. Balance wise, it stops the GMNDK from being nerfed into the ground because other armies take a 3x GMNDK detachment as allies, while leaving us with plenty of space for to bring multiple of them across a few detachments. Helycon 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Why not? Your fluff is what you make it. Perhaps the Daemonic infestation is so bad that all the GM of the Brotherhoods have had to get together, suit up in all the remaining NDK suits the entire chapter has left, and be led by the Supreme Grandmaster. An epic clash with the arch enemy!! The Prognosticators might have forseen that in order for the Silver Skulls not to be overrun on their homeworld, a small surgical strike squad of 3 NDKs need to Deep Strike into the heart of the battle to save them. Fluff is what you make it, and nothing more. Balance shouldn't be achieved by artificial limitations. Dark Reapers are so good you can only take one unit of them ever, for example. That just leads to the OP limited units always being taken, up to the limits. It's not balance. It's not choice. Eldar players should have the legitimate choice of not having to include Dark Reapers at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Mytre Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Why not? Your fluff is what you make it. Perhaps the Daemonic infestation is so bad that all the GM of the Brotherhoods have had to get together, suit up in all the remaining NDK suits the entire chapter has left, and be led by the Supreme Grandmaster. An epic clash with the arch enemy!! The Prognosticators might have forseen that in order for the Silver Skulls not to be overrun on their homeworld, a small surgical strike squad of 3 NDKs need to Deep Strike into the heart of the battle to save them. Fluff is what you make it, and nothing more. Balance shouldn't be achieved by artificial limitations. Dark Reapers are so good you can only take one unit of them ever, for example. That just leads to the OP limited units always being taken, up to the limits. It's not balance. It's not choice. Eldar players should have the legitimate choice of not having to include Dark Reapers at all. You can still run 3 GMNDK's, you just can't have them in the same detachment. Realisticly, they would come with backup of other GK, not just 3x GMNDK's and some guard. We're talking about Grand Masters here, there are only 8 in total and they aren't going anywhere alone. But lets use your logic of fluff is what you make it: Lets remove all named character limitations. K Dog should have his limit removed, because warp-:cussery allowed him to be in the same space at multiple times. I'm fielding an army of 8 K dogs. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danarc Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 According to your proposal every DG army could have Mortarion (even in 1500 game), but we can only have 1 GMDK. Even if I love fluff, and i would prefer playing only one GM at once, this will kill our little probability to have a real match. In fact codexes that have more than few good choice will not be affected so much, while our codex limited to one GM, one apothecary, one ancient, is trash. I'd like to underline that according by fluff since my first game with GK I loose twice the number of our Chapter in PAGK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCastigator Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 GMDK aren’t OP, they are the just the most efficient tool we have and they die easily once they are on the board. They stand out because the majority of our hq choices are not good. Relative to other op units they rank pretty low, IMO. If GW really wanted to stop some of the abuse just kill or modify the supreme command detachment. Reqire 2 hq and one elite or something like that. As for dark reapers, they need to get a points increase of 3-5 per model. If they prevented totally limited soulburst or actually made it void your craft world trait across the board, that would go a long way toward fixing the worst Eldar lists. The 40 inch jet bike move is totally over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Cap, do what you want in Open play! :P Go nuts. But surely you see a difference between limiting a single distinct named unit, to not limiting an unlimited amount of generic units. Apples and oranges really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Mytre Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Cap, do what you want in Open play! Go nuts. But surely you see a difference between limiting a single distinct named unit, to not limiting an unlimited amount of generic units. Apples and oranges really... Not apples and oranges. There's a limit to both fluff-wise. Draigo has 1. GMNDK limit is 8. Still, you don't understand that having a limit like this is good for us. GMNDK's are liable to be nerfed because other armies bring multiple of them, and just them. A limit to one per detachment has basically no effect on us, but stops other armies just spamming GMNDK's. According to your proposal every DG army could have Mortarion (even in 1500 game), but we can only have 1 GMDK. Even if I love fluff, and i would prefer playing only one GM at once, this will kill our little probability to have a real match. In fact codexes that have more than few good choice will not be affected so much, while our codex limited to one GM, one apothecary, one ancient, is trash. I'd like to underline that according by fluff since my first game with GK I loose twice the number of our Chapter in PAGK. Every DG army can have a Mort? What's your point? Anyway, I never said per army, I said per detachment. You take 6 vanguard detachments? 6 GMNDK's is your limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 It's not good for us... We're limiting ourselves here just to try to stop GW from wrongly nerfing a unit this isn't unbalanced, but only prolific as our other choices are sub par. We do not need to limit GMNDK in any fashion. Our sub par units need to be buffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now