The thing I find amusing is that within webway (which with the doctrine you always are for no risk) dire avengers are unbeatable by early ork. Cant go lootas because they will teleport a worker to tie them up. Boyz get infinite kited. Shootas lose hard to avengers and with double the movespeed they win the grenade war hard.
Atm ork has no combat options early against eldar.
They kill tsm in close combat 1vs1. What are you talking about? Tsm is the weakest unit in the game. They worth less then scouts, till they get plasma. Which is noncense. And their frag grenades deals NO damage, but eldars' and orcs' do. That is why sm is made to play asm only.
This shield thing makes them too strong against basic ranged squads early game imo. Maybe moving some of the hp from shield to health would be a good idea so that they would take some losses at least, along with buffs to taticals and shootas ofc.
@Kharneth said:
Neither do Space Marines. The strategy for early game marines is to run Assault Marines and avoid combat, just popping the generators super quickly.
Nah, asm totally wipe the floor with them if DA are out of range of webway, which should happen much more often when the webway teleport doctrine gets nerfed.
With the doctrine for low-flying jump, which should be nerfed too, Asm decimate DAs even when they are in range of a webway.
With crowd control from the ASM many jumps, scout stun greande, drop pods, banner and flammer, I'm not to sure why the space marines should have troubles against DA. But I do agree, TSM are actualy close to useless and need more love.
I think DA are actualy fine, to make them that worth you have to place your gate and boost them with at the very least one doctrine, most of the time two.
So in the end, for the basic x3 DA starter you spend:
990 req from DA
150 req and 30 energy from the gate
1 doctrine for shield
1 doctrine for the grenade
1 doctrine for the gate
Total 1140 req, 30 energy, 3 doctrines.
I feel like most of you are asking that DA should be equal to their counterpart but the eldar should still have to spend all that ?
In my opinion, I would much rather see SM and Orks have new options as early game doctrine so as the eldars they could make the choice to strengthen their early game too.
What should have TSM ?
As general ideas, I would like to see them have cheaper, flammer/plasma.
What about the ability to have both, not at the same time, but the ability to switch on the fly to adapt for a given situation.(as a doctrine ?)
Maybe more melee dps ? (as a doctrine ?)
After all, TSM should be the backbone of any SM army and I feel like they are supposed to be a very adaptables.
Does the boys ability is actually working well ? If not, why ? Does their scrap ability is actualy usefull ?
I'm talking about the balancing issues between TACTICAL marines and Dire Avengers. This has nothing to do with Assault Marines so stop bringing them up. Not every post on this forum needs to be about how assault marines are OP. I said in my first response that marines are practically forced to use assault marines because tactical marines aren't balanced at all.
So again, Dire Avengers, without any doctrines, are way better than Tactical Marines and it makes no sense. It makes no sense lore wise, it makes no sense balance wise, and it's really frustrating seeing as tactical marines are more expensive. Why does a 400pt unit get defeated by a 330pt unit without any trouble? You don't even need the plasma grenade. You just sit there and let them shoot. As a space marine player, it takes 800 req to defeat a 330 req unit and if the eldar player has 2 or 3 of them there's no contest.
I don't really care for tactical marines, I prefer chainswords, but this just makes no sense. Tactical Marines shouldn't be both more expensive AND fewer in number, they should be one or the other. They're more expensive when taken in equal number, but 5 marines vs 12(?) Dire Avengers ought to be more even.
@Vodacce said:
With crowd control from the ASM many jumps, scout stun greande, drop pods, banner and flammer, I'm not to sure why the space marines should have troubles against DA. But I do agree, TSM are actualy close to useless and need more love.
I think DA are actualy fine, to make them that worth you have to place your gate and boost them with at the very least one doctrine, most of the time two.
So in the end, for the basic x3 DA starter you spend:
990 req from DA
150 req and 30 energy from the gate
1 doctrine for shield
1 doctrine for the grenade
1 doctrine for the gate
Total 1140 req, 30 energy, 3 doctrines.
I feel like most of you are asking that DA should be equal to their counterpart but the eldar should still have to spend all that ?
In my opinion, I would much rather see SM and Orks have new options as early game doctrine so as the eldars they could make the choice to strengthen their early game too.
What should have TSM ?
As general ideas, I would like to see them have cheaper, flammer/plasma.
What about the ability to have both, not at the same time, but the ability to switch on the fly to adapt for a given situation.(as a doctrine ?)
Maybe more melee dps ? (as a doctrine ?)
After all, TSM should be the backbone of any SM army and I feel like they are supposed to be a very adaptables.
Does the boys ability is actually working well ? If not, why ? Does their scrap ability is actualy usefull ?
No. This is not a proper argument. Don't just start adding stuff because you want to.
1 Dire Avenger unit with nothing. Nothing.
330 requsition. You send them alone to the center of the map. You don't even use their plasma grenade. They will defeat a unit of Tactical Marines easily. Add in the doctrines and the webway gate and it's just even more one sided, but I wouldn't waste my doctrines on dire avengers, personally.
I'm talking about the balancing issues between TACTICAL marines and Dire Avengers. This has nothing to do with Assault Marines so stop bringing them up. Not every post on this forum needs to be about how assault marines are OP. I said in my first response that marines are practically forced to use assault marines because tactical marines aren't balanced at all.
So again, Dire Avengers, without any doctrines, are way better than Tactical Marines and it makes no sense. It makes no sense lore wise, it makes no sense balance wise, and it's really frustrating seeing as tactical marines are more expensive. Why does a 400pt unit get defeated by a 330pt unit without any trouble? You don't even need the plasma grenade. You just sit there and let them shoot. As a space marine player, it takes 800 req to defeat a 330 req unit and if the eldar player has 2 or 3 of them there's no contest.
I don't really care for tactical marines, I prefer chainswords, but this just makes no sense. Tactical Marines shouldn't be both more expensive AND fewer in number, they should be one or the other. They're more expensive when taken in equal number, but 5 marines vs 12(?) Dire Avengers ought to be more even.
without doctrines DA vs Tac squad (without webway) is pretty close. what i see most players do is 1 tac with 1 tac in drop pod, or better ASM in drop pod/ASM on the field immediately afterwards. they slaughter DAs in this manner which is why vs Space Marine if I see ASMs I switch to banshees which are flat out better than ASMs.
I'm talking about the balancing issues between TACTICAL marines and Dire Avengers. This has nothing to do with Assault Marines so stop bringing them up. Not every post on this forum needs to be about how assault marines are OP. I said in my first response that marines are practically forced to use assault marines because tactical marines aren't balanced at all.
So again, Dire Avengers, without any doctrines, are way better than Tactical Marines and it makes no sense. It makes no sense lore wise, it makes no sense balance wise, and it's really frustrating seeing as tactical marines are more expensive. Why does a 400pt unit get defeated by a 330pt unit without any trouble? You don't even need the plasma grenade. You just sit there and let them shoot. As a space marine player, it takes 800 req to defeat a 330 req unit and if the eldar player has 2 or 3 of them there's no contest.
I don't really care for tactical marines, I prefer chainswords, but this just makes no sense. Tactical Marines shouldn't be both more expensive AND fewer in number, they should be one or the other. They're more expensive when taken in equal number, but 5 marines vs 12(?) Dire Avengers ought to be more even.
without doctrines DA vs Tac squad (without webway) is pretty close. what i see most players do is 1 tac with 1 tac in drop pod, or better ASM in drop pod/ASM on the field immediately afterwards. they slaughter DAs in this manner which is why vs Space Marine if I see ASMs I switch to banshees which are flat out better than ASMs.
Yes. Assault Marines wipe the floor with dire avengers. Or, like I've already said, you can use 2 tactical squads to beat the dire avengers. That's 800 req or 500/15 to beat a measly 330 req. Banshees should be better than assault marines, their downside is they're super squishy, but assault marines (like the rest of them) need to be way less squishy than they are.
I disagree that it is pretty close. I've been there, even against AI (because admittedly sometimes players are using doctrines) and the dire avengers win. Whether it's close or not really isn't the point. If they were both 400 req it'd be fine, but they aren't. I don't believe Ork shootaz can beat either dire avengers or tactical marines in a 1v1 doctrineless "duel." You'd think the order would be Tactical Marines > Dire Avengers > Shoota Boyz due to their cost, but not at all.
if you want to base it on math then theoretically a 2000 req army can beat a 1500 req army, and that's not always the case. for example if u have 1 tac and 2 ASM it's basically game over no matter how many DAs you have. Does that math add up to you?
2000 requisition of heavy bolters isn't going to beat 2 predators.
Sometimes it takes a little wisdom when comparing things. As soon as you start adding multiple units or different kinds of units or various combinations you run into other factors.
A single unit of ork boyz for 300 points will defeat a tactical unit (400) or a dire avenger unit (330) because they will reach melee with enough guys to be victorious. If you had 5 Tactical units vs 5 Dire Avenger units it may be that the space marines win because they focused their fire while the DAs split their damage among all 5 units.
The math becomes unreliable; it's also out of context.
What is not out of context is 1-2 Tactical Marine squads vs 2-3 Dire Avenger squads, as that is what usually happens at the very beginning of the game. It seems imbalanced to me that and Eldar player can send all 3 DA squads to a separate location and the marine player cannot defeat any single one of those squads without using both of his squads to attack a single one. I suppose it's fair for 3 DA squads to defeat 2 TM squads as thats 990 vs 800, but the Eldar player could just as easily use 2 of his squads to combat 2 of the marine squads while the 3rd squad is going off doing whatever.
@Kharneth said:
2000 requisition of heavy bolters isn't going to beat 2 predators.
Sometimes it takes a little wisdom when comparing things. As soon as you start adding multiple units or different kinds of units or various combinations you run into other factors.
A single unit of ork boyz for 300 points will defeat a tactical unit (400) or a dire avenger unit (330) because they will reach melee with enough guys to be victorious. If you had 5 Tactical units vs 5 Dire Avenger units it may be that the space marines win because they focused their fire while the DAs split their damage among all 5 units.
The math becomes unreliable; it's also out of context.
What is not out of context is 1-2 Tactical Marine squads vs 2-3 Dire Avenger squads, as that is what usually happens at the very beginning of the game. It seems imbalanced to me that and Eldar player can send all 3 DA squads to a separate location and the marine player cannot defeat any single one of those squads without using both of his squads to attack a single one. I suppose it's fair for 3 DA squads to defeat 2 TM squads as thats 990 vs 800, but the Eldar player could just as easily use 2 of his squads to combat 2 of the marine squads while the 3rd squad is going off doing whatever.
as you explained earlier 2000 req of heavy bolters isn't going to beat 2 predators.
1-2 TSM won't beat 2-3 DA. It's a similiar comparison if you see your own logic.
SM strength is not their ability to capture points. With upgrades like health and special units like ASM they can outlast just about any force. Your comparing a greatsword to a rapier. One requires speed and finesse, the other removes an opponent decisively. They are different strategies and it's too early to say one is more dominant than the other, and it's also out of context to take 1 unit vs another unit. As you are quite aware units are used in coordination, and battles are not determined by one encounter of DAs vs TSMs. as we've already covered, TSMs do have several counters to DA Rush (drop pods, banners, ASMs).
@Kharneth I don't really understand, a good part of my post was to say I was agreeing with you.
In fewer words, what I meant was, dire avengers are fine, TSM need to be stronger. (or cheaper ?) But I wanted to develop my point more than just that. I guess I missed the spot.
As some side observations:
Eldars spend doctrines on DA because they must be winning in early game as they have an average mid game, and bad end game.
ASM are actualy the toughest light armor unit in the game with their 1500hp.
right now i'm playing Eldar and yeah i know DA are quite nice in early and very handly in Late cause of the Grenades.
But anybody is aware of, that DA have a small break during their fire? i would say after 3 or4 sec they are standing still and dont shoot. I dont think they are really OP and like others said. You must have doctrines for them to make them really reliable.
Sorry for the bad english just in the beginning to learn
@Galahad2017 1 DA > 1 SM; 1 DA < 2 SM; 2 DA > 2 SM. It just doesn't seem to fall in line that a cheaper unit can defeat a more expensive unit when they're both infantry that deal normal damage.
How can you claim that SM are superior due to "upgrades like health and special units"? Eldar have the exact same upgrades. They don't have special weapons, but you didn't mention those. SM have ASM, Eldar have Banshees, but these are really beside the point. I could add them in and say that Banshees are greater than ASM (doctrines excluded) even though Banshees are cheaper.
@Vodacce it seemed like you were disagreeing, but either way I wouldn't want to be bias in regards to whose argument seems appropriate. It seemed to me like you were adding in way more factors than were necessary. Dire Avengers don't need doctrines or a webway portal to beat a Tactical Marine unit, though it certainly helps.
@Sliveron I play Eldar. Yes, I'm very aware that the Dire Avengers have a break in their firing. Ideally, you will fight until your weapons overheat and then you'll flee to regain some shields and cool off your weapons before returning to the fight, but even if you do not do this you will still beat the space marine unit that is more expensive than your own unit.
I still don't see how this is fair and balanced. I understand there are ways to counter it; there are ways to counter anything. I suppose the banner is a good point, seeing as no one else has anything like a banner. It's not really fair to say that Tactical Marines and Dire Avengers are balanced because you can use Assault Marines. The logic there doesn't fit. If I can spend 330 req on a dire avenger squad and 435 req on a Banshee squad while the marine player spends 400 and 500 on tacticals and assault marines, wouldn't you expect that the tactical marines and assault marines would be able to beat a single enemy unit, one which is roughly their equivalent, due to the fact that the marines are more expensive?
765 requisition and some power gets you a Dire Avenger unit with Banshees, while 900 requisition and some power gets you a Tactical and Assault marine unit. Now, the Dire Avengers will defeat the Tactical marines (or cause them to flee). The Banshees will beat the assault marines (someone else said this, I'm not sure of it but no one seems to dispute it). Obviously tactics and micromanagement will play a role in a small skirmish like this, but the Eldar has the clear advantage while also spending less resources.
My question is simple: How is this balanced?
I'm sure the banner would tip the favor to the marines. So, every 3 minutes the more expensive Space Marines can defeat the cheaper Eldar.
It's not balanced. But I don't think there is anyone here who can really said that TSM are actually good. In fact there is no point to bring those guys on the field versus eldars, at least in early game.
ASM vs Banshee well... It depand a lot, are we fighting under webway gate influence, did they have their quick strike upgrade ? If yes did they land it ? Did the ASM have land their jump first ? Doctrines from both ... etc... Without anything, not even any micro, I guess banshees will win but, I don't think it mean anything.
@Vodacce said:
It's not balanced. But I don't think there is anyone here who can really said that TSM are actually good. In fact there is no point to bring those guys on the field versus eldars, at least in early game.
ASM vs Banshee well... It depand a lot, are we fighting under webway gate influence, did they have their quick strike upgrade ? If yes did they land it ? Did the ASM have land their jump first ? Doctrines from both ... etc... Without anything, not even any micro, I guess banshees will win but, I don't think it mean anything.
You can't compare things on unfair terms. So I'd say that you would be better off not adding the doctrine nor the banshee upgrade. If you add the banshee upgrade you ought to add the assault marine upgrade, but then, power swords are useless against banshees so personally I'd compare them with just what they would start out with.
I think it's fair to say that whichever unit initiated the fight would likely win. But say they charged into each other together. The banshees would slow, which wouldn't be helpful, and the assault marines would jump once, maybe twice but unlikely. I don't think the jump is all that useful squad verse squad, it's mostly useful when there are multiple squads being affected and when the assault marines have other guys who can take advantage of the CC.
I think it's less of a case of Dire Avengers being too good and more of a case of Tacticals being pretty bad. Stripping away doctrines and all the other bits, ork boyz, who cost 300 req, will beat either unit 1 to 1, Dire Avengers will just be better at inflicting some bleed thanks to being faster and having the grenades to disrupt.
If we leave this mythical place where nobody has any doctrines or faction abilities, dire avengers become ridiculous due to always being in range of a webway gate no matter what and having more health and better grenades as people have figured out they can win early by doing this.
I'm sure things will even out when they nerf the wraithlord doctrine and tacts get a buff so people actually consider using them without a flamethrower.
@Auric I never meant to imply that the problem was Dire Avengers being too powerful instead of the inverse of Tactical Marines being not powerful enough. I was not intending to place blame on any unit or to claim that anyone needed to be buffed or nerfed, I just felt it was a very clear and obvious imbalance and I wanted to know how it would have been designed in such a way.
There is no mythical world of no doctrines, so I don't know where you're getting that from. I play Space Marines with ASM doctrine, Drop Pod doctrine, and Dreadnought doctrine. I play Eldar with banshee doctrine, webway doctrine, and wraithguard doctrine. In both instances, Dire Avengers and Tactical Marines are without a doctrine. If you gave a doctrine to DA and fought against tactical marines without a doctrine that it would be clear that the DA should have an advantage. This is only multiplied when giving the DA multiple doctrines, however this makes for an unfair comparison.
Before you look at who you want to give doctrines to you need to consider some factors. Is this unit already good without the doctrine? If not, maybe there are more useful units that would benefit more from a doctrine. Is the doctrine powerful enough to compensate for a unit's lack of effectiveness? Maybe the doctrine is so good that it makes a nearly useless unit seemingly over powered.
For me, before I apply a doctrine to a unit, unless the doctrine is exceedingly powerful, I want to know that the unit in question even deserves a doctrine. Tactical Marines are subpar by themselves. The doctrines for tactical marines aren't really any better than the doctrines for other units. So it would, in my eyes, a waste of a doctrine slot to use one for my tactical marines who aren't good enough by themselves to be worth wasting a doctrine on. I wouldn't waste a doctrine on DA either, though their doctrines are probably a little better, improved shields? invisibility?! They're nice. But, in addition to being good doctrines, the unit itself is already better than its counterparts.
Yes, Ork boyz are arguably the best T1 unit. They will beat DA or tactical marines in a 1v1. This isn't because they are better, though, it's because they are able to do what they do best while also making their enemy unable to do what their enemy does best (shoot). If you had an ork boyz unit assault a passive tactical marine squad while another tactical marine squad shot at them, I'd be interested to see which was able to kill the unit first. That is, does an ork boy unit kill a tactical marine squad faster than a tactical marine squad kills an ork boy squad when both are allowed to fight in their preferred manner? I'd imagine that the tactical marines would kill the orks before the orks killed the tactical marines, but I'm not positive.
Alright guys, so l've read this entire post, and l get the case and the diffrent points, but l't seems like people are forgetting some very crucial information.
1st: The game ls BRAND NEW! Things will be slightly unbalanced, it's a hugh game with a lot of stats. Give the developers some time to look into these things and listen to our feedback. Most game becomes great after a lot of patches and balance, specially if the game goes somewhat pro, since players can spend all of their time on playing, where developers have to work on the game. lt will come.
2nd: They have already released a post on the forum, that they are looking into balance issues and that the TSM are in particular being looked upon. So they will probably be buffed soon enough in one way or another. lt's comming, give it some time.
3rd: Every Race are suppose to be played very diffrently, and therefore they will have diffrent strength.
Yes the DA are strong, but if you look into the Eldars very first options, they "only" have the DA with plasma grenades, and the fleet of foot buff, if a webway have been build.
The SM have the Droppods & Banner from the beginning + their TSM, so of course the TSM are gonna be slightly worse. So Lets say that the TSM was equally as strong as the DA, and then with droppods that can knockback and the banner on top of that, which gives them a shield? Then it would be the exact same disscussion just the other way around.
ln strategy games like this, you can't just take 2 diffrent units and pit them against each other, no buffs, no strategy, no micro management, nothing.
lt doesn't work like that.
But they are looking into a TSM buff, so be patient and give the developers time to fix it. They do listen to their players and forums.
@Kharneth After thinking about it further, it wasn't really useful for me to talk about a world with no doctrines or faction abilities in that way. While I think there isn't often a battle where a drop pod or a banner doesn't come down or an eldar unit doesn't run really fast, this ultimately complicates things, and you're probably right in that we should at least start at a point with no doctrines or outside influences.
Honestly I'm not sure how it got to this point either. My guess is that relic intended for tacs to have the advantage from having a larger healthpool, and from being able to move in to the lategame more effectively than their counterparts due to their upgrades. Maybe they focused too much on this aspect and didn't make them powerful enough without upgrades to be a viable starting unit. As some (rather paranoid if you ask me) individuals say, maybe Relic just love Eldar and so they HAD to make Dire Avengers murder tacticals? At the end of it, I don't really know, but I think balance lies in the direction of buffed tacticals, and from their latest post, I think Relic agrees.
I would agree with your guess of the outcome for the 2 tacs 1 boyz fight. I think it would be very close for the tac squad locked in melee though.
@FakeSweden The drop pod is a good point. Space marines do have that nice advantage of having a unit spawn more or less where ever they want it to spawn, albeit with a longer "loading" period. I don't know if I agree with the idea that the tactical marines are balanced when they have upgrades as that costs resources in itself plus the resources to make the arsenal, though you were going to build the arsenal anyway for a number of reasons. I know that they've said very vaguely that they intend to look at the tactical marines, but I'm not yet relieved.
I mean, flamers and plasmaguns are good, but a Bolter is a powerful weapon. It's much more powerful than an avenger shuriken catapult. Flamers and plasma guns are specialized space marine weapons and aren't intended to replace the bolter, but to supplement the squad. The bolter itself is suppose to powerful in its own right.
@Auric I agree that it's likely just a mistake or miscalculation, it just seems extremely easy to have figured out prior to releasing the game. It's as if Relic had a different team develop each of the armies and then get together and quickly compare the two. I mean, how could you miss that the tactical marines don't compete well with their counterparts, especially when they're the most expensive of the group. And sure, maybe it's because "tactical marines weren't meant for capturing objectives," but then, how you go so wrong with the lore? Because that's pretty much exactly what tactical marines are for. I mean, the tactical marines are the swiss army knives of the space marines are should be able to tackle most any situation. Everything else in the space marine army is a specialize trooper designed for one thing or another, but the tactical marines are certainly the ones whose main duty is to capture and control the objectives.
@Auric said:
I think it's less of a case of Dire Avengers being too good and more of a case of Tacticals being pretty bad. Stripping away doctrines and all the other bits, ork boyz, who cost 300 req, will beat either unit 1 to 1, Dire Avengers will just be better at inflicting some bleed thanks to being faster and having the grenades to disrupt.
Boyz can't do very much against DA's under the webway effect though, because they can never catch them and will be constantly suffering losses. Like on that small 1v1 map where you build one webway gate at the start and it covers almost the whole middle of the map the boyz are fit only for meatshelds to stall until the lootas come out.
@Auric said:
I think it's less of a case of Dire Avengers being too good and more of a case of Tacticals being pretty bad. Stripping away doctrines and all the other bits, ork boyz, who cost 300 req, will beat either unit 1 to 1, Dire Avengers will just be better at inflicting some bleed thanks to being faster and having the grenades to disrupt.
Boyz can't do very much against DA's under the webway effect though, because they can never catch them and will be constantly suffering losses. Like on that small 1v1 map where you build one webway gate at the start and it covers almost the whole middle of the map the boyz are fit only for meatshelds to stall until the lootas come out.
I won't deny the accuracy of your statement, but I think it needs to be said that in order to kite Ork boyz it takes quite a bit of effort on the Eldar player's part and really can't be done once more units enter the field. I know this sounds hypocritical when compared to my previous points referring to tactical marines vs dire avengers, but this is an Eldar tactic that takes a lot of effort and that can't be done forever. Whereas the ability for dire avengers to merely stand in front of space marines and defeat them without any player intervention seems unfair.
I absolutely understand that Orks currently have the least going for them, they're probably the most balanced race in terms of interracial balance and cross-racial balance. Eldar as a whole are pretty powerful and the only things that they have that aren't quite up to snuff are their vehicles. Space Marines on the other hand have a pretty polar list of units that are either good and reliable or subpar and less viable.
Everyone should take a page out of the Ork handbook, in my opinion.
@Auric said:
I think it's less of a case of Dire Avengers being too good and more of a case of Tacticals being pretty bad. Stripping away doctrines and all the other bits, ork boyz, who cost 300 req, will beat either unit 1 to 1, Dire Avengers will just be better at inflicting some bleed thanks to being faster and having the grenades to disrupt.
Boyz can't do very much against DA's under the webway effect though, because they can never catch them and will be constantly suffering losses. Like on that small 1v1 map where you build one webway gate at the start and it covers almost the whole middle of the map the boyz are fit only for meatshelds to stall until the lootas come out.
Completely correct, which is why I mentioned stripping away all the other bits. Obviously being within a webway radius will give the dire avengers an advantage, in the same way that being armoured will help the boyz or being hyped up will help them too.
The small 1v1 map is an issue, but for most others you should be able to take advantage of the eldar by the limits of their webway gates. Dire Avengers really aren't too quick without fleet, and it's less of an issue to catch them. This is the problem with the wraithlord doctrine, as it allows dire avengers to be under fleet 24/7, once that doctrine is tweaked (or gutted, it gives SOOOOO much stuff) and tactical marines buffed, I'm sure people will find dire avengers much more manageable.
The wraithlord doctrine isn't a huge issue when the bug is not being exploited. 6 seconds to relocate with a 40 second CD isn't broken. It's the 2 sec/20sec CD or instant/instant bug that makes it completely broken. Otherwise it's just a very useful doctrine. Not saying it isn't powerful, but I think the bug should be fixed first and then we'll see how people feel about it, because right now a lot of people are getting the wrong impression because the doctrine isn't working as intended.
I really hope it's not gonna be 40 sec CD though. I can't imagine myself having to build gates again and again and again. The ressources bleed would be such a huge nerf for the faction it seem silly. Even, having to build only 2 gates in the early game would mean, no more early banshees/dark reapers or 1 less DA squad... ?! Having to sacrifice one gate each time you want to push ? Or only one gate but if you lose or flee your 1st fight you lose the gate too ? Yeah... Please no lol.
I'm pretty sure DA loose against boyz without the influence of a webway gate. You can't kite them either.
But yeah, sadely, gate or not TSM still lose the fight.
Shadow Spectres are OP!
Illum Zar aka Fire Prism IS OP!
the thing is each race has different timings and when you let all things out like doctrines, outside influence and such, you compare still an orange to an apple. the devs will buff tsm but don't expect tsm to get uber buffed else orks and eldar can say goodbye to early game and hope to survive to midgame including asm's vs them.
da are fine how they are, the dire avengers are not the shitty units in this game they are in TT, and eldar is a shooting army if you remember. So when you compare now the t1 shooting units with doctrines and buffs eldar UNDER WEBWAY can win engagements i agree, but in that cases the early game its quite interesting. First of micro, positioning and use of ability win you the fight. And when you dont have a melee unit out as eldar, sm or ork its your fault this game requires the use of different unit types especially to counter SM, ELdar or ork cheese.
Menu
Comments
Nyx
The thing I find amusing is that within webway (which with the doctrine you always are for no risk) dire avengers are unbeatable by early ork. Cant go lootas because they will teleport a worker to tie them up. Boyz get infinite kited. Shootas lose hard to avengers and with double the movespeed they win the grenade war hard.
Atm ork has no combat options early against eldar.
Kharneth
Neither do Space Marines. The strategy for early game marines is to run Assault Marines and avoid combat, just popping the generators super quickly.
PaperBaG
They are thin as paper? All the knockdowns and stuns SM has early?
Vodacce
It kinda cost about 3 doctrines to make them this strong too...
Diogen84
They kill tsm in close combat 1vs1. What are you talking about? Tsm is the weakest unit in the game. They worth less then scouts, till they get plasma. Which is noncense. And their frag grenades deals NO damage, but eldars' and orcs' do. That is why sm is made to play asm only.
Bersercker
This shield thing makes them too strong against basic ranged squads early game imo. Maybe moving some of the hp from shield to health would be a good idea so that they would take some losses at least, along with buffs to taticals and shootas ofc.
Nah, asm totally wipe the floor with them if DA are out of range of webway, which should happen much more often when the webway teleport doctrine gets nerfed.
With the doctrine for low-flying jump, which should be nerfed too, Asm decimate DAs even when they are in range of a webway.
Vodacce
With crowd control from the ASM many jumps, scout stun greande, drop pods, banner and flammer, I'm not to sure why the space marines should have troubles against DA. But I do agree, TSM are actualy close to useless and need more love.
I think DA are actualy fine, to make them that worth you have to place your gate and boost them with at the very least one doctrine, most of the time two.
So in the end, for the basic x3 DA starter you spend:
990 req from DA
150 req and 30 energy from the gate
1 doctrine for shield
1 doctrine for the grenade
1 doctrine for the gate
Total 1140 req, 30 energy, 3 doctrines.
I feel like most of you are asking that DA should be equal to their counterpart but the eldar should still have to spend all that ?
In my opinion, I would much rather see SM and Orks have new options as early game doctrine so as the eldars they could make the choice to strengthen their early game too.
What should have TSM ?
As general ideas, I would like to see them have cheaper, flammer/plasma.
What about the ability to have both, not at the same time, but the ability to switch on the fly to adapt for a given situation.(as a doctrine ?)
Maybe more melee dps ? (as a doctrine ?)
After all, TSM should be the backbone of any SM army and I feel like they are supposed to be a very adaptables.
Does the boys ability is actually working well ? If not, why ? Does their scrap ability is actualy usefull ?
Kharneth
Did anyone even read this post?
I'm talking about the balancing issues between TACTICAL marines and Dire Avengers. This has nothing to do with Assault Marines so stop bringing them up. Not every post on this forum needs to be about how assault marines are OP. I said in my first response that marines are practically forced to use assault marines because tactical marines aren't balanced at all.
So again, Dire Avengers, without any doctrines, are way better than Tactical Marines and it makes no sense. It makes no sense lore wise, it makes no sense balance wise, and it's really frustrating seeing as tactical marines are more expensive. Why does a 400pt unit get defeated by a 330pt unit without any trouble? You don't even need the plasma grenade. You just sit there and let them shoot. As a space marine player, it takes 800 req to defeat a 330 req unit and if the eldar player has 2 or 3 of them there's no contest.
I don't really care for tactical marines, I prefer chainswords, but this just makes no sense. Tactical Marines shouldn't be both more expensive AND fewer in number, they should be one or the other. They're more expensive when taken in equal number, but 5 marines vs 12(?) Dire Avengers ought to be more even.
Kharneth
No. This is not a proper argument. Don't just start adding stuff because you want to.
1 Dire Avenger unit with nothing. Nothing.
330 requsition. You send them alone to the center of the map. You don't even use their plasma grenade. They will defeat a unit of Tactical Marines easily. Add in the doctrines and the webway gate and it's just even more one sided, but I wouldn't waste my doctrines on dire avengers, personally.
Galahad2017
without doctrines DA vs Tac squad (without webway) is pretty close. what i see most players do is 1 tac with 1 tac in drop pod, or better ASM in drop pod/ASM on the field immediately afterwards. they slaughter DAs in this manner which is why vs Space Marine if I see ASMs I switch to banshees which are flat out better than ASMs.
Kharneth
Yes. Assault Marines wipe the floor with dire avengers. Or, like I've already said, you can use 2 tactical squads to beat the dire avengers. That's 800 req or 500/15 to beat a measly 330 req. Banshees should be better than assault marines, their downside is they're super squishy, but assault marines (like the rest of them) need to be way less squishy than they are.
I disagree that it is pretty close. I've been there, even against AI (because admittedly sometimes players are using doctrines) and the dire avengers win. Whether it's close or not really isn't the point. If they were both 400 req it'd be fine, but they aren't. I don't believe Ork shootaz can beat either dire avengers or tactical marines in a 1v1 doctrineless "duel." You'd think the order would be Tactical Marines > Dire Avengers > Shoota Boyz due to their cost, but not at all.
Galahad2017
if you want to base it on math then theoretically a 2000 req army can beat a 1500 req army, and that's not always the case. for example if u have 1 tac and 2 ASM it's basically game over no matter how many DAs you have. Does that math add up to you?
Kharneth
2000 requisition of heavy bolters isn't going to beat 2 predators.
Sometimes it takes a little wisdom when comparing things. As soon as you start adding multiple units or different kinds of units or various combinations you run into other factors.
A single unit of ork boyz for 300 points will defeat a tactical unit (400) or a dire avenger unit (330) because they will reach melee with enough guys to be victorious. If you had 5 Tactical units vs 5 Dire Avenger units it may be that the space marines win because they focused their fire while the DAs split their damage among all 5 units.
The math becomes unreliable; it's also out of context.
What is not out of context is 1-2 Tactical Marine squads vs 2-3 Dire Avenger squads, as that is what usually happens at the very beginning of the game. It seems imbalanced to me that and Eldar player can send all 3 DA squads to a separate location and the marine player cannot defeat any single one of those squads without using both of his squads to attack a single one. I suppose it's fair for 3 DA squads to defeat 2 TM squads as thats 990 vs 800, but the Eldar player could just as easily use 2 of his squads to combat 2 of the marine squads while the 3rd squad is going off doing whatever.
Galahad2017
as you explained earlier 2000 req of heavy bolters isn't going to beat 2 predators.
1-2 TSM won't beat 2-3 DA. It's a similiar comparison if you see your own logic.
SM strength is not their ability to capture points. With upgrades like health and special units like ASM they can outlast just about any force. Your comparing a greatsword to a rapier. One requires speed and finesse, the other removes an opponent decisively. They are different strategies and it's too early to say one is more dominant than the other, and it's also out of context to take 1 unit vs another unit. As you are quite aware units are used in coordination, and battles are not determined by one encounter of DAs vs TSMs. as we've already covered, TSMs do have several counters to DA Rush (drop pods, banners, ASMs).
Vodacce
@Kharneth I don't really understand, a good part of my post was to say I was agreeing with you.
In fewer words, what I meant was, dire avengers are fine, TSM need to be stronger. (or cheaper ?) But I wanted to develop my point more than just that. I guess I missed the spot.
As some side observations:
Eldars spend doctrines on DA because they must be winning in early game as they have an average mid game, and bad end game.
ASM are actualy the toughest light armor unit in the game with their 1500hp.
Sliveron
So i just wanted to know...
right now i'm playing Eldar and yeah i know DA are quite nice in early and very handly in Late cause of the Grenades.
But anybody is aware of, that DA have a small break during their fire? i would say after 3 or4 sec they are standing still and dont shoot. I dont think they are really OP and like others said. You must have doctrines for them to make them really reliable.
Sorry for the bad english just in the beginning to learn
Kharneth
@Galahad2017 1 DA > 1 SM; 1 DA < 2 SM; 2 DA > 2 SM. It just doesn't seem to fall in line that a cheaper unit can defeat a more expensive unit when they're both infantry that deal normal damage.
How can you claim that SM are superior due to "upgrades like health and special units"? Eldar have the exact same upgrades. They don't have special weapons, but you didn't mention those. SM have ASM, Eldar have Banshees, but these are really beside the point. I could add them in and say that Banshees are greater than ASM (doctrines excluded) even though Banshees are cheaper.
@Vodacce it seemed like you were disagreeing, but either way I wouldn't want to be bias in regards to whose argument seems appropriate. It seemed to me like you were adding in way more factors than were necessary. Dire Avengers don't need doctrines or a webway portal to beat a Tactical Marine unit, though it certainly helps.
@Sliveron I play Eldar. Yes, I'm very aware that the Dire Avengers have a break in their firing. Ideally, you will fight until your weapons overheat and then you'll flee to regain some shields and cool off your weapons before returning to the fight, but even if you do not do this you will still beat the space marine unit that is more expensive than your own unit.
I still don't see how this is fair and balanced. I understand there are ways to counter it; there are ways to counter anything. I suppose the banner is a good point, seeing as no one else has anything like a banner. It's not really fair to say that Tactical Marines and Dire Avengers are balanced because you can use Assault Marines. The logic there doesn't fit. If I can spend 330 req on a dire avenger squad and 435 req on a Banshee squad while the marine player spends 400 and 500 on tacticals and assault marines, wouldn't you expect that the tactical marines and assault marines would be able to beat a single enemy unit, one which is roughly their equivalent, due to the fact that the marines are more expensive?
765 requisition and some power gets you a Dire Avenger unit with Banshees, while 900 requisition and some power gets you a Tactical and Assault marine unit. Now, the Dire Avengers will defeat the Tactical marines (or cause them to flee). The Banshees will beat the assault marines (someone else said this, I'm not sure of it but no one seems to dispute it). Obviously tactics and micromanagement will play a role in a small skirmish like this, but the Eldar has the clear advantage while also spending less resources.
My question is simple: How is this balanced?
I'm sure the banner would tip the favor to the marines. So, every 3 minutes the more expensive Space Marines can defeat the cheaper Eldar.
Vodacce
It's not balanced. But I don't think there is anyone here who can really said that TSM are actually good. In fact there is no point to bring those guys on the field versus eldars, at least in early game.
ASM vs Banshee well... It depand a lot, are we fighting under webway gate influence, did they have their quick strike upgrade ? If yes did they land it ? Did the ASM have land their jump first ? Doctrines from both ... etc... Without anything, not even any micro, I guess banshees will win but, I don't think it mean anything.
Kharneth
You can't compare things on unfair terms. So I'd say that you would be better off not adding the doctrine nor the banshee upgrade. If you add the banshee upgrade you ought to add the assault marine upgrade, but then, power swords are useless against banshees so personally I'd compare them with just what they would start out with.
I think it's fair to say that whichever unit initiated the fight would likely win. But say they charged into each other together. The banshees would slow, which wouldn't be helpful, and the assault marines would jump once, maybe twice but unlikely. I don't think the jump is all that useful squad verse squad, it's mostly useful when there are multiple squads being affected and when the assault marines have other guys who can take advantage of the CC.
Auric
I think it's less of a case of Dire Avengers being too good and more of a case of Tacticals being pretty bad. Stripping away doctrines and all the other bits, ork boyz, who cost 300 req, will beat either unit 1 to 1, Dire Avengers will just be better at inflicting some bleed thanks to being faster and having the grenades to disrupt.
If we leave this mythical place where nobody has any doctrines or faction abilities, dire avengers become ridiculous due to always being in range of a webway gate no matter what and having more health and better grenades as people have figured out they can win early by doing this.
I'm sure things will even out when they nerf the wraithlord doctrine and tacts get a buff so people actually consider using them without a flamethrower.
Kharneth
@Auric I never meant to imply that the problem was Dire Avengers being too powerful instead of the inverse of Tactical Marines being not powerful enough. I was not intending to place blame on any unit or to claim that anyone needed to be buffed or nerfed, I just felt it was a very clear and obvious imbalance and I wanted to know how it would have been designed in such a way.
There is no mythical world of no doctrines, so I don't know where you're getting that from. I play Space Marines with ASM doctrine, Drop Pod doctrine, and Dreadnought doctrine. I play Eldar with banshee doctrine, webway doctrine, and wraithguard doctrine. In both instances, Dire Avengers and Tactical Marines are without a doctrine. If you gave a doctrine to DA and fought against tactical marines without a doctrine that it would be clear that the DA should have an advantage. This is only multiplied when giving the DA multiple doctrines, however this makes for an unfair comparison.
Before you look at who you want to give doctrines to you need to consider some factors. Is this unit already good without the doctrine? If not, maybe there are more useful units that would benefit more from a doctrine. Is the doctrine powerful enough to compensate for a unit's lack of effectiveness? Maybe the doctrine is so good that it makes a nearly useless unit seemingly over powered.
For me, before I apply a doctrine to a unit, unless the doctrine is exceedingly powerful, I want to know that the unit in question even deserves a doctrine. Tactical Marines are subpar by themselves. The doctrines for tactical marines aren't really any better than the doctrines for other units. So it would, in my eyes, a waste of a doctrine slot to use one for my tactical marines who aren't good enough by themselves to be worth wasting a doctrine on. I wouldn't waste a doctrine on DA either, though their doctrines are probably a little better, improved shields? invisibility?! They're nice. But, in addition to being good doctrines, the unit itself is already better than its counterparts.
Yes, Ork boyz are arguably the best T1 unit. They will beat DA or tactical marines in a 1v1. This isn't because they are better, though, it's because they are able to do what they do best while also making their enemy unable to do what their enemy does best (shoot). If you had an ork boyz unit assault a passive tactical marine squad while another tactical marine squad shot at them, I'd be interested to see which was able to kill the unit first. That is, does an ork boy unit kill a tactical marine squad faster than a tactical marine squad kills an ork boy squad when both are allowed to fight in their preferred manner? I'd imagine that the tactical marines would kill the orks before the orks killed the tactical marines, but I'm not positive.
FakeSweden
Alright guys, so l've read this entire post, and l get the case and the diffrent points, but l't seems like people are forgetting some very crucial information.
1st: The game ls BRAND NEW! Things will be slightly unbalanced, it's a hugh game with a lot of stats. Give the developers some time to look into these things and listen to our feedback. Most game becomes great after a lot of patches and balance, specially if the game goes somewhat pro, since players can spend all of their time on playing, where developers have to work on the game. lt will come.
2nd: They have already released a post on the forum, that they are looking into balance issues and that the TSM are in particular being looked upon. So they will probably be buffed soon enough in one way or another. lt's comming, give it some time.
3rd: Every Race are suppose to be played very diffrently, and therefore they will have diffrent strength.
Yes the DA are strong, but if you look into the Eldars very first options, they "only" have the DA with plasma grenades, and the fleet of foot buff, if a webway have been build.
The SM have the Droppods & Banner from the beginning + their TSM, so of course the TSM are gonna be slightly worse. So Lets say that the TSM was equally as strong as the DA, and then with droppods that can knockback and the banner on top of that, which gives them a shield? Then it would be the exact same disscussion just the other way around.
ln strategy games like this, you can't just take 2 diffrent units and pit them against each other, no buffs, no strategy, no micro management, nothing.
lt doesn't work like that.
But they are looking into a TSM buff, so be patient and give the developers time to fix it. They do listen to their players and forums.
Auric
@Kharneth After thinking about it further, it wasn't really useful for me to talk about a world with no doctrines or faction abilities in that way. While I think there isn't often a battle where a drop pod or a banner doesn't come down or an eldar unit doesn't run really fast, this ultimately complicates things, and you're probably right in that we should at least start at a point with no doctrines or outside influences.
Honestly I'm not sure how it got to this point either. My guess is that relic intended for tacs to have the advantage from having a larger healthpool, and from being able to move in to the lategame more effectively than their counterparts due to their upgrades. Maybe they focused too much on this aspect and didn't make them powerful enough without upgrades to be a viable starting unit. As some (rather paranoid if you ask me) individuals say, maybe Relic just love Eldar and so they HAD to make Dire Avengers murder tacticals? At the end of it, I don't really know, but I think balance lies in the direction of buffed tacticals, and from their latest post, I think Relic agrees.
I would agree with your guess of the outcome for the 2 tacs 1 boyz fight. I think it would be very close for the tac squad locked in melee though.
Kharneth
@FakeSweden The drop pod is a good point. Space marines do have that nice advantage of having a unit spawn more or less where ever they want it to spawn, albeit with a longer "loading" period. I don't know if I agree with the idea that the tactical marines are balanced when they have upgrades as that costs resources in itself plus the resources to make the arsenal, though you were going to build the arsenal anyway for a number of reasons. I know that they've said very vaguely that they intend to look at the tactical marines, but I'm not yet relieved.
I mean, flamers and plasmaguns are good, but a Bolter is a powerful weapon. It's much more powerful than an avenger shuriken catapult. Flamers and plasma guns are specialized space marine weapons and aren't intended to replace the bolter, but to supplement the squad. The bolter itself is suppose to powerful in its own right.
@Auric I agree that it's likely just a mistake or miscalculation, it just seems extremely easy to have figured out prior to releasing the game. It's as if Relic had a different team develop each of the armies and then get together and quickly compare the two. I mean, how could you miss that the tactical marines don't compete well with their counterparts, especially when they're the most expensive of the group. And sure, maybe it's because "tactical marines weren't meant for capturing objectives," but then, how you go so wrong with the lore? Because that's pretty much exactly what tactical marines are for. I mean, the tactical marines are the swiss army knives of the space marines are should be able to tackle most any situation. Everything else in the space marine army is a specialize trooper designed for one thing or another, but the tactical marines are certainly the ones whose main duty is to capture and control the objectives.
Bersercker
Boyz can't do very much against DA's under the webway effect though, because they can never catch them and will be constantly suffering losses. Like on that small 1v1 map where you build one webway gate at the start and it covers almost the whole middle of the map the boyz are fit only for meatshelds to stall until the lootas come out.
Kharneth
I won't deny the accuracy of your statement, but I think it needs to be said that in order to kite Ork boyz it takes quite a bit of effort on the Eldar player's part and really can't be done once more units enter the field. I know this sounds hypocritical when compared to my previous points referring to tactical marines vs dire avengers, but this is an Eldar tactic that takes a lot of effort and that can't be done forever. Whereas the ability for dire avengers to merely stand in front of space marines and defeat them without any player intervention seems unfair.
I absolutely understand that Orks currently have the least going for them, they're probably the most balanced race in terms of interracial balance and cross-racial balance. Eldar as a whole are pretty powerful and the only things that they have that aren't quite up to snuff are their vehicles. Space Marines on the other hand have a pretty polar list of units that are either good and reliable or subpar and less viable.
Everyone should take a page out of the Ork handbook, in my opinion.
Auric
Completely correct, which is why I mentioned stripping away all the other bits. Obviously being within a webway radius will give the dire avengers an advantage, in the same way that being armoured will help the boyz or being hyped up will help them too.
The small 1v1 map is an issue, but for most others you should be able to take advantage of the eldar by the limits of their webway gates. Dire Avengers really aren't too quick without fleet, and it's less of an issue to catch them. This is the problem with the wraithlord doctrine, as it allows dire avengers to be under fleet 24/7, once that doctrine is tweaked (or gutted, it gives SOOOOO much stuff) and tactical marines buffed, I'm sure people will find dire avengers much more manageable.
Kharneth
The wraithlord doctrine isn't a huge issue when the bug is not being exploited. 6 seconds to relocate with a 40 second CD isn't broken. It's the 2 sec/20sec CD or instant/instant bug that makes it completely broken. Otherwise it's just a very useful doctrine. Not saying it isn't powerful, but I think the bug should be fixed first and then we'll see how people feel about it, because right now a lot of people are getting the wrong impression because the doctrine isn't working as intended.
Vodacce
I really hope it's not gonna be 40 sec CD though. I can't imagine myself having to build gates again and again and again. The ressources bleed would be such a huge nerf for the faction it seem silly. Even, having to build only 2 gates in the early game would mean, no more early banshees/dark reapers or 1 less DA squad... ?! Having to sacrifice one gate each time you want to push ? Or only one gate but if you lose or flee your 1st fight you lose the gate too ? Yeah... Please no lol.
I'm pretty sure DA loose against boyz without the influence of a webway gate. You can't kite them either.
But yeah, sadely, gate or not TSM still lose the fight.
Elkantar1981
Shadow Spectres are OP!
Illum Zar aka Fire Prism IS OP!
the thing is each race has different timings and when you let all things out like doctrines, outside influence and such, you compare still an orange to an apple. the devs will buff tsm but don't expect tsm to get uber buffed else orks and eldar can say goodbye to early game and hope to survive to midgame including asm's vs them.
da are fine how they are, the dire avengers are not the shitty units in this game they are in TT, and eldar is a shooting army if you remember. So when you compare now the t1 shooting units with doctrines and buffs eldar UNDER WEBWAY can win engagements i agree, but in that cases the early game its quite interesting. First of micro, positioning and use of ability win you the fight. And when you dont have a melee unit out as eldar, sm or ork its your fault this game requires the use of different unit types especially to counter SM, ELdar or ork cheese.
For good openers i suggest you read https://www.reddit.com/r/DawnOfWarIII/comments/69dnce/math_on_openings_and_phase_1_squad_loss/, or other guides in this forum before you have a problem with a unit, look at what costs this unit include to be efficient, and what abilitys you have with each race AT THEIR TIMINGS.