rcooper890 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Hey there BaC crowd, Simple question really, why is it, that there are no eternal warriors in the dark angel codex? Is there a fluff reasoning behind it, or does GW really hate Dark Angels? Was it a simple mistake? Laziness? Any comments would be greatly appreciated as I am extremely frustrated with this. I was playing Azreal under the assumption he was EW and my opponent pointed out that he wasn't. Help me understand this fellow first company!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galthan Ironsturm Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 This is simply because we do not need ... Otherwise, plays Sammael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaplain Lucifer Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well, we know as much as you do.. We can only assume that Eternal Warrior is a big thing and doesn't happen very often, thus SAmmael got our codex share of Eternal warrior. Now in C:SM since they represent a miriad of chapters then EW has to be made more available. Wouldn't be fair to give EW to a IF special character for example and then everybody else sharing the couldn't couldn't have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Each "race" has one eternal warrior model. SM may has several but it's one by chapter'a trait. So basically it's one per army, and not necessary the chapter master. For DA it's Sammael. Maybe not the most clever choice, but the origin of it comes from the previous codex when Sammael could not join a RW unit AND that the +1T didn't count toward the instant death limit. As a matter of consequence GW did have to grant him with EW in order not to be killed by a single lascannon shot. TBH, I wouldn't five EW to Azrael anyway, rather Belial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redtoof Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Each "race" has one eternal warrior model. SM may has several but it's one by chapter'a trait. So basically it's one per army, and not necessary the chapter master. For DA it's Sammael. Maybe not the most clever choice, but the origin of it comes from the previous codex when Sammael could not join a RW unit AND that the +1T didn't count toward the instant death limit. As a matter of consequence GW did have to grant him with EW in order not to be killed by a single lascannon shot. TBH, I wouldn't five EW to Azrael anyway, rather Belial. Pretty sure Marines can take more than one eternal warrior at a time, as can some of the older codexes. Also GW doesn't love us poor Tyranid players enough to give us an eternal warrior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 My only doubt is if Calgar AND Cassius has both EW... Yeah older codex has maybe several EW but like you say : they're old codex... That's actually a decision of GW dating from v5. At the end of v4, most of the armies were full of EW models, the worst were Nids with basic ALL synapse creature with this special rules... That was plain ridiculous, as it made all weapons causing instant death paying for it but making this rule useless against 80% of the multi wound models. Now it's how as it should be : rare... But you know, most of the top players I know play WITHOUT EW models so... It shouldn't be THAT useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onisuzume Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'd like to point out that by RAW, the old 'nid synapse only applied to attack made at 2×T, not at T×2+1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SvenONE Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I wish I could find the post (no idea where it was that I had read it, so it may as well be made up), but it wa similar to what Master Avoghai said. Most of the EW models were a holdover from a previous edition, the article I read, specifically mentioned Sammael and that it was important that he had it in the previous edition due to all of the ID weapons (or the way bracketed toughtness worked with ID), it then went on to suspect that his EW now was also something that was oddly kept in for strange reasons. In all my fielding of Sammael, I don't think I've ever needed to tell an opponent "oh yeah, he's got EW" At this point the only remaining Space Marine EW I can think of are: Calgar, Draigo, Lysander, Grimnar, Sammael, Sanguinor and Shield Eternal Bearing Captain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Simple question really, why is it, that there are no eternal warriors in the dark angel codex?No mistake. No laziness. Game balance. Giving everyone EW is stupid, and happened with 5th ed. They have reigned it back in. Look at the Chaos codex. A book full of 10,000 year old demigods, the original Space Marines in some cases, and only one model in the book gets EW. Not even immortal daemon princes get it. Which is good. Characters have to be killable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Warrior Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Ah I thought it was a question for me. ;) anyways I agree with Xenith, giving every character EW takes skill out of the game. Much like the fantasy trend of giving everyone re-rolls. I'll find more fun ways to keep my characters safe/eliminate install kill threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcooper890 Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 I also play space wolves and there are a few characters with EW in there but you also have an upgrade, saga of the bear, that gives EW. So during the game where they pointed out that no one ( now I know Sammael has it) has EW. So you can imagine my frustration at that moment. Where my problem arises is that the game lacks balence in so many other ways that I would have thought they would give out a few more EW to counter some things. I'm referring mainly to Eldar which seem to have so many things broken, or unbalanced, in their codex. Wave serpants, wraith knights, one shot from the wraith knight could potentially kill 99% of characters out of my DA codex while most weapons in the space marine arsenal can't even touch it, and then another chunk can only touch it on 6's. So if it is a balance issue, GW forgot to "balence" other armies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 You do not balance a thing by breaking something else... Like it has been said, EW warriors has been abused in a way everybody is reluctant to see it come back. And by the way, Tau and Eldar are powerful without using EW models... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcooper890 Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 I understand that Tau and Eldar are powerful without EW. That's actually my point exactly. That they have such powerful codex's with underpriced firepower and I feel all other 6th edition Codex's can't compete with them. I've heard from several people, some on this website, that you can't beat a competitive Iyaden or Tau list ( heaven forbid you face Taudar or Eltaur) without some serious list tailoring. I myself have gotten my ass handed to me time and time again against Eldar and Tau. To a degree you could say that their entire codex are tailored to kill SM with the abundance of AP3 or better weaponry. It isn't breaking a rule to give it out more freely if the army isn't going to be competitive against any other army to begin with. So I come back to my original question and point with wanting a few more EW in my DA codex. I have multiple people in agreeance with me in that out of all 6th edition dex's, DA drew the short straw...or were given it by GW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrogator Stobz Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I believe that we got a little bit underserved by a new writer trying very hard to be conservative in his rule writing. The only other SC that to me should have EW is Belial as others have mentioned. He has fluff history of surviving powerclaw wounds to be back fighting/leading in the same campaign, that is tough. Sammy almost doesn't need it anymore as he is finally an IC and Vetock just left him alone to avoid rioting, I'm glad he still does however as I often run him detached and have saved him from certain death many times with EW :D . 2c stobz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'd like to point out that by RAW, the old 'nid synapse only applied to attack made at 2×T, not at T×2+1. That was an errate done by GW that has held up for maybe a week ,in which GW was getting spam mailed by nid players and it was revoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperialis_Dominatus Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Seems more in character for Belial to have, if they're going to insist on only one Dark Angels character having it. Then again, the rule was almost written for Daemon Princes (really Phoenix Lords), and it's been yanked because every character and his dog got it the last couple editions, so now it's got to be meted out sparingly (except the obligatory any-given-main-loyalist-dex-character-Artefact). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Insanely, characters without EW seem to make a lot of invulnerable saves. In recent games....Belial survived three rounds of TMC smashing while systematically stripping them of their wounds with the sword of secrets. Pedro smashed a squad of deathwing after they got done chewing up his squad. He took one unsaved wound...from a sword. Doh! On the other hand, Belial recently died to snap shots from a squad of wraithguard that he was charging solo. I think the absence of EW adds a ton of interest to games. It's annoying if you're a WAAC powergamer, I suppose. I've just learned to see both sides. If I want the thrill of introducing Eldrad to the business end of a thunderhammer, I have to accept the agony of seeing Belial sniped with a lascannon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperialis_Dominatus Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I disagree with your characterization that those annoyed by the crazed, frenetic implementation by the rules developers of a particularly powerful rule without any clear philosophy are all WAAC powergamers. But if your current experience floats your goat, good on you. Good to see people enjoying the hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Each "race" has one eternal warrior model. SM may has several but it's one by chapter'a trait. So basically it's one per army, and not necessary the chapter master. For DA it's Sammael. Maybe not the most clever choice, but the origin of it comes from the previous codex when Sammael could not join a RW unit AND that the +1T didn't count toward the instant death limit. As a matter of consequence GW did have to grant him with EW in order not to be killed by a single lascannon shot. TBH, I wouldn't five EW to Azrael anyway, rather Belial. Pretty sure Marines can take more than one eternal warrior at a time, as can some of the older codexes. Also GW doesn't love us poor Tyranid players enough to give us an eternal warrior. ...which is probably because of all the Toughness 6 (even Toughness 5, seeing how there are few to no models with Strength 10 attacks in most armies) critters running amok which pretty much equates to Eternal Warrior. Now, if the "cry me a river" Tyranid army could only field one or two such critters, then you might have something of a point. Seeing as the bugs can field many, many times that number of Toughness 5 or 6 monstrosities, I think you are looking for sympathy in the wrong place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I understand that Tau and Eldar are powerful without EW. That's actually my point exactly. That they have such powerful codex's with underpriced firepower and I feel all other 6th edition Codex's can't compete with them. I've heard from several people, some on this website, that you can't beat a competitive Iyaden or Tau list ( heaven forbid you face Taudar or Eltaur) without some serious list tailoring. I myself have gotten my a** handed to me time and time again against Eldar and Tau. To a degree you could say that their entire codex are tailored to kill SM with the abundance of AP3 or better weaponry. It isn't breaking a rule to give it out more freely if the army isn't going to be competitive against any other army to begin with. So I come back to my original question and point with wanting a few more EW in my DA codex. I have multiple people in agreeance with me in that out of all 6th edition dex's, DA drew the short straw...or were given it by GW. Competitive armies have always existed... There have always been 2-3 army list tailored for competition. Always. There are some reasons for that. The main one being that it's nearly impossible to balance 15 race and 400 different units by releasing codex on a 5-7 years time frame. Tau have never been competitive. They are now. Things are changing and will change again. I disagree that DA are the worst army to be played... Ask chaos players what they think... except for the drake they have no interesting units and even the cool factor can't apply with all those old/ugly models. One of my friend will play ETC with DA allies in his space marine army, so we do have strong and competitive units. asking for more eternal warriors is asking for something that has already been done and that has been prooved not working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I haven't met a single Space Wolves player that fields an army that exemplifies the bravery of Space Wolves. Do they take Saga of the Beastslayer on anything to hunt the big stuff? Never. It is always Saga of the Bear + Thunder hammer + Storm Shield + Thunderwolf, or worse still they hide like cowards behind the skirts of their witches who use Jaws of the World Wolf to kill "the big scarewy monstas" for them. Suffice to say, if one approaches Dark Angels with the same mindset as so many seem to approach Space Wolves, or expect to be able to do so, they will be disappointed that there is no option to build the UBER combat monster, and then "heroically" pit them against something which, statistically, is likely lesser than themselves, such as Abaddon, a Bloodthirster, Mephiston, a Swarmlord, Primarchs, and similar "wusses" that the average Wolf Lord should "rightly" make mincemeat of. What I see as the problem here, and I see it all too often, is that somebody feels slighted when somebody else has a bigger, more blunt object to wield in combat then they do. "But why can't I have a bigger, more blunterer object than they do? Waaah!!!" Well, shut up you babies. There are other things in ALL of the army books that can be used to wreak havoc than a big, blunt object. The people who usually learn how to make use of them are usually called cheesy bastards by all those who only understand the use of the blunt object, and that the only way that their blunt object could have been beaten by something that was not obviously a bigger, more blunt object was that it was cheesy. "I lost because he plays one of those cheesy Iyanden Ghost/Tau Battlesuit/whatever armies." No. They lose because they brought a sledge hammer to play with, while the opponent brought a small mallet, and the opponent then forced the former player into a game of whack-a-mole. The slow sledge hammer of DOOOM doesn't do so well in a game of whack-a-mole, does it. Dark Angels are not meant to be the biggest, most blunt object. They can require a little bit more finesse to use well than most other Space Marines, but not that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcooper890 Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 I haven't met a single Space Wolves player that fields an army that exemplifies the bravery of Space Wolves. Do they take Saga of the Beastslayer on anything to hunt the big stuff? Never. It is always Saga of the Bear + Thunder hammer + Storm Shield + Thunderwolf, or worse still they hide like cowards behind the skirts of their witches who use Jaws of the World Wolf to kill "the big scarewy monstas" for them. Suffice to say, if one approaches Dark Angels with the same mindset as so many seem to approach Space Wolves, or expect to be able to do so, they will be disappointed that there is no option to build the UBER combat monster, and then "heroically" pit them against something which, statistically, is likely lesser than themselves, such as Abaddon, a Bloodthirster, Mephiston, a Swarmlord, Primarchs, and similar "wusses" that the average Wolf Lord should "rightly" make mincemeat of. What I see as the problem here, and I see it all too often, is that somebody feels slighted when somebody else has a bigger, more blunt object to wield in combat then they do. "But why can't I have a bigger, more blunterer object than they do? Waaah!!!" Well, shut up you babies. There are other things in ALL of the army books that can be used to wreak havoc than a big, blunt object. The people who usually learn how to make use of them are usually called cheesy bastards by all those who only understand the use of the blunt object, and that the only way that their blunt object could have been beaten by something that was not obviously a bigger, more blunt object was that it was cheesy. "I lost because he plays one of those cheesy Iyanden Ghost/Tau Battlesuit/whatever armies." No. They lose because they brought a sledge hammer to play with, while the opponent brought a small mallet, and the opponent then forced the former player into a game of whack-a-mole. The slow sledge hammer of DOOOM doesn't do so well in a game of whack-a-mole, does it. Dark Angels are not meant to be the biggest, most blunt object. They can require a little bit more finesse to use well than most other Space Marines, but not that much. You have an awesome point here and I agree with you...on most things. Yes, I admit, I am whiny about many 40k related subjects, I'm still new to the game, been at it less than a year. But.....but the proof is in the pudding my friend, and it's not just my personal experiences with losing. Eldar, Tau, and more specifically Eltaur are winning tournaments. The majority of them as well. I will say it again, without serious list tailoring, I believe your chances of winning are halved before one dice is rolled. Space wolves were my first army and I still feel a "first love" feeling toward them. But I love the fluff of dark angels so much that they are my main army as of the moment. I know they aren't a plug and play army and I kind of enjoy it that way. I just hate seeing Belial fall to a single shot and being tabled shortly there after. Originally when I posted the question I was curious to know the fluff behind the rule eternal warrior. I didn't know that it was abused in 5th edition as I didn't play 5th edition. My apologies to all if I came off whiny, I just know I can't be the only one who feels this way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Eldar, Tau, and more specifically Eltaur are winning tournaments. The majority of them as well. I will say it again, without serious list tailoring, I believe your chances of winning are halved before one dice is rolled They win tournament because v6 is based on S5-S6 shooting saturation and that's their main weaponry. Strangely, you'll never get ID with S5-S6 weapons. What I can suggest is : find those tau/eldar players and propose them to play a game with Azrael and/or Belial with EW... Make a test and you'll see that it won't make any difference. Tau/eldar are broken because... They are broken. Eldar has always been difficult to balance out... Tau, well it's the first time I see the sun shining on them. Like any edition, v6 has its issues. V3 it was BT and Berserkers rhino rush. V4 the chaos lash of torment or IW list. V5 the nidzilla then the GK full psycannons. V6 it used to be the necron flying circus and now it's the tau/eldar... We just have to live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Cheers to you, rcooper890. No, you don't come off as whiny, but this topic has come up before in various places, and in regard to various armies. Part of the reason for the tournament standings for various armies is that tournament play does not cater all that well to the horde army in particular, so you almost never see them. Most tournament lists I see, of any army, would be brutally crushed by any number of intelligently constructed horde armies. Tournament lists/standings do not reflect how everyone in the non-tournament environment plays. It is simply hard to beat numbers in most cases. One must also consider that tournaments are not all about "I killed all yer dudez- I win!", but about completing objectives, which doesn't necessarily even require any massively "blunt object" unit, just an army list that can dish out a decent degree of punishment, suck up a decent amount of punishment, and (more importantly) achieve and/or deny more objectives than your opponent can (which is usually more about maneuverability than anything else). Having more characters with Eternal Warrior is not the "it" factor in that equation. Other than that, armies are purposely meant to be different, and some will have similar things, some will favor some things more than others, etc., by design. Every gamer's motto should be '"Play to your strengths, and learn how to force the enemy not to play to theirs." If you enjoy this aspect of strategy games, and learn to do it even marginally well, the quality of your gaming experience will be greatly enhanced, whether you win or not (because sometimes the dice themselves are just out to get you!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I disagree with your characterization that those annoyed by the crazed, frenetic implementation by the rules developers of a particularly powerful rule without any clear philosophy are all WAAC powergamers. But if your current experience floats your goat, good on you. Good to see people enjoying the hobby. And I disagree that a 180 degree change in philosophy equates to crazed and frenetic behavior. I applaud anything that runs counter to power creep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.