Menu
Shadow Spectre Doctrines
3 years ago
Ace40k
talking about:
- Improved Skimming: increased speed as long as shields are up
- Presentient Robes: increased shield points
- Spectre Holo-Field: auto-stealth once shield breaks
has anyone gotten any good use out of them? they sound pretty interesting especially Improved Skimming and Presentient Robes which could synergize well together. the Holo-Field doctrine, on the other hand, might improve survivability of these squishy units but could also hurt damage output.
what do you guys think?
0
Comments
MaxwellsDaemon
I want to like them because they are fancy and pretty but the Eldar army roster is hurt too much by having no AV that doesn't cost power.
In very rare circumstances I've been able to say 'oh it's great they can fire on the move I'm totally gonna wreck this guys paladin or whatever' but 9 times out of ten I watch them slowly float towards the intended target get mowed down by a devastator or arbitrarily change target and fond myself swearing at them instead.
They try hard but in reality it's funny that they are both the worst and most expensive AV in the game.
AngelofDeth
I usually take Improved skimming for speed and spectre holo field for escape but seriously, it's just a waste of slot because they died too fast. Perhaps you could make some play with it but it's super difficult.
Svanh
I use Improved Skimming when I have Kyre equipped but I wouldn't take it on its own. It's a good doctrine (constant +2 speed), I just don't usually have a use for Shadow Spectres.
Darkstirling
The doctrines are bad because shadow spectres are terrible
They might see use if it was worth building spectres
Maybe spectres should be stealthed by default
Ace40k
well actually i found Spectres pretty useful against Landspeeders, Dreadnoughts and even Predator Annihilators. 3-4 squads with medium infantry damage/armor upgrades and even only one doctrine melts these units pretty quickly. the great thing is that they can move while shooting so heavy melee units like the Dreadnought cant catch up to them (or at least they shouldnt if you micro Spectres well enough)
however, that's only been my experience so far. maybe the high-rank "pro" players have a different view...
MaxwellsDaemon
@Ace40k
In my experience Spectres can be good at capitalising misplays. If the enemy plays smart there is rarely much you can do with them at equal power and rec investment...again just my experience.
Katitof
Specter doctrines are good.
The problem is, specters themselves are not and usually a waste of time and resources.
jonoliveira12
Yup.
Svanh
You're quite right, the problem is one of context.
With Landspeeders, you need to have the upgrade researched and a few squads before you can take one on. This means probably devoting resources towards Spectres before you actually see a Landspeeder which conflicts with rushing a Falcon or getting Wraithguard or Vypers, the latter two being better counters to the Landspeeder.
Spectres are great against Dreadnoughts because they can kite them but a supported Dreadnought against supported Spectres is a different matter entirely. The Eldar units in support of the Spectres can't kite the Dreadnought and fire at the same time so the Dreadnought disrupts your supporting units while the enemy army focuses your Spectres.
Spectres are the best Eldar counter to the Predator Annihilator but it's a dedicated AT vehicle. Since nothing but mass Vypers really justifies your enemy building one they will probably get Landspeeders or Destructors, both of which have much wider usage cases and are less vulnerable to Spectres.
Like @MaxwellsDaemon said, Spectres are good at capitalising on an enemy's mistakes but aren't great at forcing mistakes.
transplanar
I feel like the best use for them isn't so much for engagements, but essentially as siege units. When you are sending your army in to harass a generator or resource point, you can take it down much more quickly. Really accentuates the Eldar hit-and-run playstyle.
I think in combat they are decent anti-armor, so long as they have a sizable force to back them up.
AngelofDeth
You'll need 4/5 spectre to destroy listening post faster, otherwise the enemy will reinforce or your spectre will die, killed by listening post. If you have fully upgraded infantry unit, I think it will reduce the casualty and hasten the destruction by spectre. However, I think they're good vs land speeder and deffkoppta but still, a single or two squad of spectres cannot destroy a single LS.
transplanar
I'm not talking about sending them alone, but with an army. They can focus down buildings while your other units deal with enemies or contribute to damage on a listening post.
AngelofDeth
Oh I see and yes, with army they served their purpose but I'll just get wraithguard because they can do better.
MrBenis
I build a squad of spectres or two for killing towers and cores. They either get left alone and end up doing some nice DOT or they got focussed early and basically waste the enemies shots. You're not meant to kill spectres until they hit stage 3 lol.. that's when they actually are damaging.
MaxwellsDaemon
@MrBenis
Not sure that 880/60 investment and bleed is actually wasted shots
.
MaxwellsDaemon
@AngelofDeth @transplanar
AFAIK listening posts actually have moral armour which is why both wraith guard and shadow spectres do F'all damage to it.
Ironically I find one of the best units in the Eldar roster for taking listening posts are probably rangers since they do good normal damage and out range the listening post guns...cost for cost they do it far more efficiently than wraith guard without rift doctrine.
IMO that's a small bit of bad game design....and I think they probably need to add a different armour type to change this.
MrBenis
At tier 3 during a core push yes it is. Don't forget spectres do not slow or stun, they aren't true damage, they cannot melee or alpha strike. Spectres have only one valid use in my army and thats as a late game dps magnet while they slowly chew on towers/cores.
There is a philosophy in eve online where they say you cannot balance for cost: the logic being you can kill their assets but their income as an entity remains static. The same is passably true in dow3 for the attacking team it doesn't matter if you kill my units because income is so fast and upkeep falls with every death ergo killing my stuff isn't as damaging to me as the dps I put on you is to you.
Spectres right now are garbage outside of base harass and walker harass. I could never condone building them until they and the fireprism become front loaded alpha strike damage.
transplanar
When I think about it, they seem to occupy a strange design space between efficiency and novelty. Technically, they are sub-optimal compared to Wraithguard, but can be obtained earlier for early-game harass. With things like their Holofield doctrine they can be preserved so long as they are left alone. So essentially you have a unit that is "weaker" and requires more micro to make use of, yet in the right circumstances can have a big impact early game if used well.
In other words, you basically have the safe, reliable, but slower option in Wraithguard, or the quicker but riskier option of Shadow Spectres. The question Relic would have to ponder is do they want to keep these "weaker" alternatives in the game, to allow people to mess around and get clever with unconventional units played well, or strive to have as many units as possible viable for all skill levels.
Personally, I get the feeling that Eldar is by design the "harder" race to play, given how squishy their units are. They are not nearly as friendly to novices as something like Space Marines. This suggests to me that they may be open to having these more niche-use units. The question is can a well-played difficult unit be worth it to a high-level player over its simpler alternative?
MaxwellsDaemon
@transplanar
I wouldn't say it's the difficulty of use so much as the economy of it all.
SM and Ork have AV options for zero power. Meaning they can survive vehicle pressure while teching or getting their own vehicles.
Eldar are always on the back foot for having such high power demands.
In addition, of the three infantry based AV option across the races they are the most liable to bleed.
AngelofDeth
I wish I could just build 3 DA some banshee and some DR then go tier 2 but I just can't take the pressure. They melt really fast, not to mention about ASM early spam and stikkbomb which obviously will kill my banshee and DA fast. So I had to keep spending my req for more tier 1 unit so I could survive and push more but it delayed my tier 2 so badly. If I get tier 2 early, I wouldn't have bigger army that could repel my opponent's attack. So now I simply get more squads, hold and kite as much as possible. Unless if you're against average opponent, it will be a bit easy.
Thunderhost
Why not put up a replay, because even if I symphatize with you, I'm just not seeing how you play.
I've stopped using DAs entirely in 1v1, going directly for QS shees and then either DR, Rangers or SS depending on map, opponent etc.
AngelofDeth
I don't know how to do so. I think port saudnerus is not a good map for the eldar because it's too narrow. Btw, I've watched vindi streaming as eldar just now he won, but really struggled hard in mid game. I couldn't pull of something like that hmm : p
MaxwellsDaemon
Port saunderus is horrible for Eldar atm. The issue I find is there are no decent places to get a webway up without scouting the movements of the enemy first (Do you go top or bottom).
If you put down your webway and you're forced off of it (fairly easy to do in this patch and on this map then you're screwed).
Thunderhost
@AngelofDeth Try and put it up on gamesreplay.org for example, then link here.
@MaxwellsDaemon While I think you're partially right, I'm also of the opinion that the middle part of the map is overlooked. Placing the Webway close to the elite req point and either opening the gate for easy movement and/or trying a more obfuscating play might work? Top and bottom on Port S seems to be chokepoints and thus not a good place for eldar unless they dictate the terms.
MaxwellsDaemon
@Thunderhost
You may be right. I'll see if I can make that work next time I get the chance to play.
In the last I've found the middle is the easiest part of the map to be forced out of and also the hardest to reinforce. Your structures are exposed (no high ground etc) and you can relatively easily get flanked.
I usually look to dominate mid once I've opened up the access from my base.
I'll try dominating it early.
For the record I have been getting good use of turrets on this map.
Thunderhost
@MaxwellsDaemon I find turrets to be counterintuitive to eldarplay. I may or may not also be sarcastic/ironic. On a more serious note, turrets tend to force me into a more defensive mindset.
jonoliveira12
They can be used offensively, and to good effect.