Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

High elven rangers

GriffithxiGriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 731
I have a hard time determining where this unit should be in power level because usually when looking at a unit in a roster I try to take into account that rosters intended weaknesses and strengths in the source material TT and in the game.
Since this is a unit that wasn't originally in the TT and was put in to plug a gap I am not sure.

Currently the unit beats WE wardancers when rangers are chevroned to 799 and Wardancers at 800
They also beat Dryads when they are chevroned up 601 price point (which I was shocked about since dryads stats look like they would be the perfect counter for these units with magic attacks cutting through High elven rangers 20 Physical resist and having 60 armor.

At the same time Dryads, Witch elves and wardancers have some benefits over the rangers Dryads and wardancers are immune to psychology
Witch elves can rampage units.
Then on the other hand High elven rangers are very resilient to range fire due to their spacing.

A matchup where they really worry me is against vampire counts because when they are chevroned up to 866 they seem to trade 50/50 or a little better with grave guard at 850 when this is the infantry unit you would think vamps would bring to counter them.
and HE would counter Grave guard with White lion.

In the beastmen matchup Gor Herd 600 lose very handily to High elven rangers 600. I personally would think this should be an area where beastmen would be a bit stronger than HE since this didn't seem to be an area of intended strength in the original HE race design before this gap was plugged. As evidenced by the fact that when Avalorn got access to dryads they got charged more for the same unit.

So what do people think should HE rangers be performing as one of the best in class anti infantry units in its price range or are they a bit too strong considering this was originally what I thought was a designed weakness for HE?

I would expect HE to have better tools in other areas like archers cav and magic when compared to most other races and have a decent tool in rangers but not one of the best in class here for the price.

Or maybe alternatively most other races infantry in this price range is just too weak?
«13456720

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,130
    They’re pretty high class kind of a good deal. But high elves still have some pretty substantial gaps in the infantry line, and a lot of cases rangers aren’t what you want. A strong unit for the price if it’s what you need.
  • turrehundturrehund Registered Users Posts: 223
    Again, as with all 1v1 comparisons where High Elves are involved, you need to take into consideration Martial Prowess, especially with Rangers that lose a massive portion of their MD once below 50%. 1v1 results don't really tell you that much about their overall performance.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 770
    Should be the same cost as corsairs.
    Very good unit at their current price.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,130
    basically they're dedicated anti-inf and overall more vulnerable than corsairs. with loose formation they could still be OK at 625 but they are also basically OK at 600.
  • GriffithxiGriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 731
    edited June 21
    eumaies said:

    basically they're dedicated anti-inf and overall more vulnerable than corsairs. with loose formation they could still be OK at 625 but they are also basically OK at 600.

    Testing their ranged vulnerability with empire crossbowmen. Each test had 5 units running toward the crossbowmen and 1 crossbowmen unit shooting at one elven ranger/ corsair
    The test is to see what their health is once they reach the empire crossbowmen firing on them.
    presenting the unit that came out with the least health and the unit that came out with the most health left.

    High elven ranger max health 5670
    test 1
    3300 to 4000 health when they reached the line of crossbowmen 58% health left to 70% health left

    second ranger test 3598 to 3950 63% to 69% health left

    Black ark corsair 5175 max health
    when they reached the line of crossbowmen
    first black ark test 2900 to 3000 56% to 57% health left
    second 3082 to 3349 59% to 64% health left

    HE infantry have always seemed to be designed to take less range damage than many others but it is interesting to know that Rangers seem to be as well protected from range or more than corsairs. If the comparison was of vulnerability to AP ranged fire I suspect they would pull away even more.

    That spacing would be nice on some other similar units with no shields and low armor.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158
    Also worth noting
    Chevroning to cost does not always give useful balancing data. You do not get the same kind of goodies busting a unit up through price points with chevrons as a unit that started there.

    My argument for them would be that in a roster with an Infantry identity but very few Infantry choices, they are often predictable if not at least expectable and they do not preform so wildly out of cost against units they where not intended to fight. In the battles ive fought with and against them, i have yet to see them live through something that ought to have killed them or kill something that ought to have been beyond them.

    I dont think they are OP
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,130

    eumaies said:

    basically they're dedicated anti-inf and overall more vulnerable than corsairs. with loose formation they could still be OK at 625 but they are also basically OK at 600.

    Testing their ranged vulnerability with empire crossbowmen. Each test had 5 units running toward the crossbowmen and 1 crossbowmen unit shooting at one elven ranger/ corsair
    The test is to see what their health is once they reach the empire crossbowmen firing on them.
    presenting the unit that came out with the least health and the unit that came out with the most health left.

    High elven ranger max health 5670
    test 1
    3300 to 4000 health when they reached the line of crossbowmen 58% health left to 70% health left

    second ranger test 3598 to 3950 63% to 69% health left

    Black ark corsair 5175 max health
    when they reached the line of crossbowmen
    first black ark test 2900 to 3000 56% to 57% health left
    second 3082 to 3349 59% to 64% health left

    HE infantry have always seemed to be designed to take less range damage than many others but it is interesting to know that Rangers seem to be as well protected from range or more than corsairs. If the comparison was of vulnerability to AP ranged fire I suspect they would pull away even more.

    That spacing would be nice on some other similar units with no shields and low armor.
    Yes the spacing is quite nice and they are overall better vs ranged.

    But with no armour they are more vulnerable in melee to alot of enemies.

    And that ranged damage impacts their melee performance more than it impacts the corsairs.

    Still, i think they're close to a 625 unit than a 600 unit. They have a lot of minor perks that comparable units lack.
  • GriffithxiGriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 731
    edited June 21
    Analog said:

    Also worth noting
    Chevroning to cost does not always give useful balancing data. You do not get the same kind of goodies busting a unit up through price points with chevrons as a unit that started there.

    My argument for them would be that in a roster with an Infantry identity but very few Infantry choices, they are often predictable if not at least expectable and they do not preform so wildly out of cost against units they where not intended to fight. In the battles ive fought with and against them, i have yet to see them live through something that ought to have killed them or kill something that ought to have been beyond them.

    I dont think they are OP

    Not that the unit itself is necessarily OP

    I don't think most people think of Glade guard w starfire shafts as OP but if you take that balanced unit and put it in Vampire counts roster people might say that is OP now because there is a tradeoff that happens with most factions where they are strong in certain areas and weak in others.

    So my assumption is that if you are mitigating a weakness with a unit that wasn't there in TT it should be a good option to have but not a best in price class unit as those should go to factions who boast that as their strength for the other tradeoffs they take.

    I guess this boils down to what do the designers see the strength and weaknesses of the faction as and how does the unit fit in with that?

    If you asked me I would say considering the roster wardancers probably deserve to be a bit more cost efficient against their intended targets than the High elven rangers because WE lack a armored AP two handed unit that is resistant to ranged fire.
  • GriffithxiGriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 731
    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:

    basically they're dedicated anti-inf and overall more vulnerable than corsairs. with loose formation they could still be OK at 625 but they are also basically OK at 600.

    Testing their ranged vulnerability with empire crossbowmen. Each test had 5 units running toward the crossbowmen and 1 crossbowmen unit shooting at one elven ranger/ corsair
    The test is to see what their health is once they reach the empire crossbowmen firing on them.
    presenting the unit that came out with the least health and the unit that came out with the most health left.

    High elven ranger max health 5670
    test 1
    3300 to 4000 health when they reached the line of crossbowmen 58% health left to 70% health left

    second ranger test 3598 to 3950 63% to 69% health left

    Black ark corsair 5175 max health
    when they reached the line of crossbowmen
    first black ark test 2900 to 3000 56% to 57% health left
    second 3082 to 3349 59% to 64% health left

    HE infantry have always seemed to be designed to take less range damage than many others but it is interesting to know that Rangers seem to be as well protected from range or more than corsairs. If the comparison was of vulnerability to AP ranged fire I suspect they would pull away even more.

    That spacing would be nice on some other similar units with no shields and low armor.
    Yes the spacing is quite nice and they are overall better vs ranged.

    But with no armour they are more vulnerable in melee to alot of enemies.

    And that ranged damage impacts their melee performance more than it impacts the corsairs.

    Still, i think they're close to a 625 unit than a 600 unit. They have a lot of minor perks that comparable units lack.
    Me personally I would prefer slight stat adjustments to price increases in this case because one reason I was so excited for the rangers was that it sometimes felt very hard to get enough troops in my HE builds to handle large armies well and I assume that is why they put in rangers I just didn't expect them to be a best in price range unit at their job.

  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158

    Analog said:

    Also worth noting
    Chevroning to cost does not always give useful balancing data. You do not get the same kind of goodies busting a unit up through price points with chevrons as a unit that started there.

    My argument for them would be that in a roster with an Infantry identity but very few Infantry choices, they are often predictable if not at least expectable and they do not preform so wildly out of cost against units they where not intended to fight. In the battles ive fought with and against them, i have yet to see them live through something that ought to have killed them or kill something that ought to have been beyond them.

    I dont think they are OP

    Not that the unit itself is necessarily OP

    I don't think most people think of Glade guard w starfire shafts as OP but if you take that balanced unit and put it in Vampire counts roster people might say that is OP now because there is a tradeoff that happens with most factions where they are strong in certain areas and weak in others.

    So my assumption is that if you are mitigating a weakness with a unit that wasn't there in TT it should be a good option to have but not a best in price class unit as those should go to factions who boast that as their strength for the other tradeoffs they take.

    I guess this boils down to what do the designers see the strength and weaknesses of the faction as and how does the unit fit in with that?

    If you asked me I would say considering the roster wardancers probably deserve to be a bit more cost efficient against their intended targets than the High elven rangers because WE lack a armored AP two handed unit that is resistant to ranged fire.
    Reading the HE faction identity, it comes to being a Melee Infantry and FLying SEM foocused faction.

    Most of their Armour, Ap are within these two categories.

    Most of their Speciality damage (Anti I and Anti L) are within their Infantry.

    Their infantry are each and all significantly distinct from one another.

    The HE are a faction with an Infantry Identity and focus. One hopes their Infantry thus is capable.


    Wood elves are an obvious range read, Most of their best tools are in their ranged troops.

    They also have ready access to AP in almost every category and at a low asking price.

    They have a lack of armour in almost all categories.

    Most of their speciality damage is in their infantry.


    Overall id argue that they both have a strong Melee Infantry identity but for different reasons. Wood elves are more of a glass cannon. Both should have some well preforming melee infantry options.
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 3,761
    edited June 22
    I think it's BS that high elves got this unit, factions having gaps in their rosters is intended.

    I also hate the fact that it has 90 models, no elf unit should be 90 models.
  • kasunrathnatungakasunrathnatunga Registered Users Posts: 4,031
    the unit is properly elfed, which is the only thing that matters
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158

    I think it's BS that high elves got this unit, factions having gaps in their rosters is intended.

    I also hate the fact that it has 90 models, no elf unit should be 90 models.


    HE have roster gaps. They have exactly two units that can deal ranged AP damage and one of them is a bolt thrower and the other is a hybrid with 180 range.

    He struggle to contest the midrange 180+ that alot of factions have good options for.

    They have roster gaps. And i would argue that a lack of good or Varied infantry was never an intended roster gap
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158

    the unit is properly elfed, which is the only thing that matters

    I am unsure how useful it is to refer to a unit as being 'Elfed' in that im not 100% certain what you are trying to convey and it seems overly dismissive and unhelpful for a discussion on balancing.
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 3,761
    Analog said:

    I think it's BS that high elves got this unit, factions having gaps in their rosters is intended.

    I also hate the fact that it has 90 models, no elf unit should be 90 models.


    HE have roster gaps. They have exactly two units that can deal ranged AP damage and one of them is a bolt thrower and the other is a hybrid with 180 range.

    He struggle to contest the midrange 180+ that alot of factions have good options for.

    They have roster gaps. And i would argue that a lack of good or Varied infantry was never an intended roster gap
    It is intended, Rangers were never a unit. CA got the idea from the Warhammer Quest game. I would have been fine with the ranger as a hero but not as a unit.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 7,182
    edited June 22
    Again yet another overtuned unit. A $675 unit being priced at $600

    These guys r SUBSTANTIALLY better than corsairs while costing lot less.

    They have almost 10% more hp than corsairs and a stupid 20% more models. If thats not good enough they have +4 ld more. Which itself is easily already $25 right there. If u look at both corsairs and rangers being $650. The xtra +4 ld would easily made them a $675.

    And my god that loose formation with 90 models and 40 speed. These guys r frikking top range #1 med inf in game.

    Nothing much to say really, single handedly made a huge impact in games vs tombs, liz, voast, beastman, nosca just to name a few.

    Just how the elf these guys have better stats than corsairs while having MORE models

    Before its $500 spear for
    22 att 25 dmg vs inf for helf.
    Now u get $600
    37 att 35 dmg vs inf for helf.

    Frikking absurb gap filling
    No problem paying $650-675 for these guys, wiping they crap out of those inf in these range
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158

    Analog said:

    I think it's BS that high elves got this unit, factions having gaps in their rosters is intended.

    I also hate the fact that it has 90 models, no elf unit should be 90 models.


    HE have roster gaps. They have exactly two units that can deal ranged AP damage and one of them is a bolt thrower and the other is a hybrid with 180 range.

    He struggle to contest the midrange 180+ that alot of factions have good options for.

    They have roster gaps. And i would argue that a lack of good or Varied infantry was never an intended roster gap
    It is intended, Rangers were never a unit. CA got the idea from the Warhammer Quest game. I would have been fine with the ranger as a hero but not as a unit.
    How is rangers an intended roster Gap? Just because it didnt exist on tabletop or in lore is not a comprehensive reason. The game we play is not the lore, or the tabletop.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158
    yst said:

    Again yet another overtuned unit. A $675 unit being priced at $600

    These guys r SUBSTANTIALLY better than corsairs while costing lot less.

    They have almost 10% more hp than corsairs and a stupid 20% more models. If thats not good enough they have +4 ld more. Which itself is easily already $25 right there. If u look at both corsairs and rangers being $650. The xtra +4 ld would easily made them a $675.

    And my god that loose formation with 90 models and 40 speed. These guys r frikking top range #1 med inf in game.

    Nothing much to say really, single handedly made a huge impact in games vs tombs, liz, voast, beastman, nosca just to name a few.

    Just how the elf these guys have better stats than corsairs while having MORE models

    Before its $500 spear for
    22 att 25 dmg vs inf for helf.
    Now u get $600
    37 att 35 dmg vs inf for helf.

    Frikking absurb gap filling
    No problem paying $650-675 for these guys, wiping they crap out of those inf in these range

    Lack of Melee infantry (or even quality Melee infantry) was never a HE roster gap
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 3,761
    Analog said:

    Analog said:

    I think it's BS that high elves got this unit, factions having gaps in their rosters is intended.

    I also hate the fact that it has 90 models, no elf unit should be 90 models.


    HE have roster gaps. They have exactly two units that can deal ranged AP damage and one of them is a bolt thrower and the other is a hybrid with 180 range.

    He struggle to contest the midrange 180+ that alot of factions have good options for.

    They have roster gaps. And i would argue that a lack of good or Varied infantry was never an intended roster gap
    It is intended, Rangers were never a unit. CA got the idea from the Warhammer Quest game. I would have been fine with the ranger as a hero but not as a unit.
    How is rangers an intended roster Gap? Just because it didnt exist on tabletop or in lore is not a comprehensive reason. The game we play is not the lore, or the tabletop.
    Ok, lets give them cannons too. **** sticking to rosters then.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158

    Analog said:

    Analog said:

    I think it's BS that high elves got this unit, factions having gaps in their rosters is intended.

    I also hate the fact that it has 90 models, no elf unit should be 90 models.


    HE have roster gaps. They have exactly two units that can deal ranged AP damage and one of them is a bolt thrower and the other is a hybrid with 180 range.

    He struggle to contest the midrange 180+ that alot of factions have good options for.

    They have roster gaps. And i would argue that a lack of good or Varied infantry was never an intended roster gap
    It is intended, Rangers were never a unit. CA got the idea from the Warhammer Quest game. I would have been fine with the ranger as a hero but not as a unit.
    How is rangers an intended roster Gap? Just because it didnt exist on tabletop or in lore is not a comprehensive reason. The game we play is not the lore, or the tabletop.
    Ok, lets give them cannons too. **** sticking to rosters then.
    Cannons would be an example of filling a roster gap, Rangers are not.
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 3,761
    yst said:

    Again yet another overtuned unit. A $675 unit being priced at $600

    These guys r SUBSTANTIALLY better than corsairs while costing lot less.

    They have almost 10% more hp than corsairs and a stupid 20% more models. If thats not good enough they have +4 ld more. Which itself is easily already $25 right there. If u look at both corsairs and rangers being $650. The xtra +4 ld would easily made them a $675.

    And my god that loose formation with 90 models and 40 speed. These guys r frikking top range #1 med inf in game.

    Nothing much to say really, single handedly made a huge impact in games vs tombs, liz, voast, beastman, nosca just to name a few.

    Just how the elf these guys have better stats than corsairs while having MORE models

    Before its $500 spear for
    22 att 25 dmg vs inf for helf.
    Now u get $600
    37 att 35 dmg vs inf for helf.

    Frikking absurb gap filling
    No problem paying $650-675 for these guys, wiping they crap out of those inf in these range

    It's power creep, and the high elves are the most inaccurately adapted roster in the game.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158

    yst said:

    Again yet another overtuned unit. A $675 unit being priced at $600

    These guys r SUBSTANTIALLY better than corsairs while costing lot less.

    They have almost 10% more hp than corsairs and a stupid 20% more models. If thats not good enough they have +4 ld more. Which itself is easily already $25 right there. If u look at both corsairs and rangers being $650. The xtra +4 ld would easily made them a $675.

    And my god that loose formation with 90 models and 40 speed. These guys r frikking top range #1 med inf in game.

    Nothing much to say really, single handedly made a huge impact in games vs tombs, liz, voast, beastman, nosca just to name a few.

    Just how the elf these guys have better stats than corsairs while having MORE models

    Before its $500 spear for
    22 att 25 dmg vs inf for helf.
    Now u get $600
    37 att 35 dmg vs inf for helf.

    Frikking absurb gap filling
    No problem paying $650-675 for these guys, wiping they crap out of those inf in these range

    It's power creep, and the high elves are the most inaccurately adapted roster in the game.
    How would you adapt them? What would you see changed?

  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 3,761
    Analog said:

    yst said:

    Again yet another overtuned unit. A $675 unit being priced at $600

    These guys r SUBSTANTIALLY better than corsairs while costing lot less.

    They have almost 10% more hp than corsairs and a stupid 20% more models. If thats not good enough they have +4 ld more. Which itself is easily already $25 right there. If u look at both corsairs and rangers being $650. The xtra +4 ld would easily made them a $675.

    And my god that loose formation with 90 models and 40 speed. These guys r frikking top range #1 med inf in game.

    Nothing much to say really, single handedly made a huge impact in games vs tombs, liz, voast, beastman, nosca just to name a few.

    Just how the elf these guys have better stats than corsairs while having MORE models

    Before its $500 spear for
    22 att 25 dmg vs inf for helf.
    Now u get $600
    37 att 35 dmg vs inf for helf.

    Frikking absurb gap filling
    No problem paying $650-675 for these guys, wiping they crap out of those inf in these range

    It's power creep, and the high elves are the most inaccurately adapted roster in the game.
    How would you adapt them? What would you see changed?

    I would have just stuck to their army book. It's not that hard to not give Teclis and Allarielle mounts or restrict dragons to being mounts only.

    And yes Rangers are filling a roster gap, it's a unit designed to clear chaff at a price point the roster didn't have. They're just the high elf version of corsairs.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 7,182
    Analog said:


    Lack of Melee infantry (or even quality Melee infantry) was never a HE roster gap

    Pleeeaaasseeee

    $509 SPEAR jumping to $800 ap 2h

    And ure saying theres no gap, jeself...
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 7,182



    It's power creep, and the high elves are the most inaccurately adapted roster in the game.

    Martials just a really bad implementation, teclics phoenix, allarials eagle, rangers, what a hot mess really
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158
    yst said:

    Analog said:


    Lack of Melee infantry (or even quality Melee infantry) was never a HE roster gap

    Pleeeaaasseeee

    $509 SPEAR jumping to $800 ap 2h

    And ure saying theres no gap, jeself...
    By this measure, are Sister of Slaughter filling a roster gap that shouldnt be filled? Are Jezzails? Are Razordons?

    By this logic, if it didnt exist in the release roster its not allowed to exist. Would you prefer all new units just be slightly tweaked versions of existing units? Sounds boring.

    Price gap is one single metric to look at. Infantry focused faction getting more infantry options shouldn't be world or balance shattering. And mostly isnt. Rangers do bring alot of new tools to the table but(Like Silvern Gaurd) do not radically alter the weaknesses of the faction in question.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158

    Analog said:

    yst said:

    Again yet another overtuned unit. A $675 unit being priced at $600

    These guys r SUBSTANTIALLY better than corsairs while costing lot less.

    They have almost 10% more hp than corsairs and a stupid 20% more models. If thats not good enough they have +4 ld more. Which itself is easily already $25 right there. If u look at both corsairs and rangers being $650. The xtra +4 ld would easily made them a $675.

    And my god that loose formation with 90 models and 40 speed. These guys r frikking top range #1 med inf in game.

    Nothing much to say really, single handedly made a huge impact in games vs tombs, liz, voast, beastman, nosca just to name a few.

    Just how the elf these guys have better stats than corsairs while having MORE models

    Before its $500 spear for
    22 att 25 dmg vs inf for helf.
    Now u get $600
    37 att 35 dmg vs inf for helf.

    Frikking absurb gap filling
    No problem paying $650-675 for these guys, wiping they crap out of those inf in these range

    It's power creep, and the high elves are the most inaccurately adapted roster in the game.
    How would you adapt them? What would you see changed?

    I would have just stuck to their army book. It's not that hard to not give Teclis and Allarielle mounts or restrict dragons to being mounts only.

    And yes Rangers are filling a roster gap, it's a unit designed to clear chaff at a price point the roster didn't have. They're just the high elf version of corsairs.
    By this measure any new unit of any kind that's not a variant of an existing unit is filling a roster gap
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 3,761
    Analog said:

    Analog said:

    yst said:

    Again yet another overtuned unit. A $675 unit being priced at $600

    These guys r SUBSTANTIALLY better than corsairs while costing lot less.

    They have almost 10% more hp than corsairs and a stupid 20% more models. If thats not good enough they have +4 ld more. Which itself is easily already $25 right there. If u look at both corsairs and rangers being $650. The xtra +4 ld would easily made them a $675.

    And my god that loose formation with 90 models and 40 speed. These guys r frikking top range #1 med inf in game.

    Nothing much to say really, single handedly made a huge impact in games vs tombs, liz, voast, beastman, nosca just to name a few.

    Just how the elf these guys have better stats than corsairs while having MORE models

    Before its $500 spear for
    22 att 25 dmg vs inf for helf.
    Now u get $600
    37 att 35 dmg vs inf for helf.

    Frikking absurb gap filling
    No problem paying $650-675 for these guys, wiping they crap out of those inf in these range

    It's power creep, and the high elves are the most inaccurately adapted roster in the game.
    How would you adapt them? What would you see changed?

    I would have just stuck to their army book. It's not that hard to not give Teclis and Allarielle mounts or restrict dragons to being mounts only.

    And yes Rangers are filling a roster gap, it's a unit designed to clear chaff at a price point the roster didn't have. They're just the high elf version of corsairs.
    By this measure any new unit of any kind that's not a variant of an existing unit is filling a roster gap
    Greenskins don't have Halberd infantry but CA decides to add Black Orcs w/Halberds. CA has now filled a roster gap that the roster is supposed to have.
  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Registered Users Posts: 2,474
    turrehund said:

    Again, as with all 1v1 comparisons where High Elves are involved, you need to take into consideration Martial Prowess, especially with Rangers that lose a massive portion of their MD once below 50%. 1v1 results don't really tell you that much about their overall performance.

    i don't understand why 1v1 shouldn't be done.

    if you want to delete their MP before engaging with your inf it's most likely you need to commmit other resources to do that, which means more gold/risk invikved.

    I am not saying these are Op, but don't try to sell that narrative, one can't test HE units 1v1.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 158

    Analog said:

    Analog said:

    yst said:

    Again yet another overtuned unit. A $675 unit being priced at $600

    These guys r SUBSTANTIALLY better than corsairs while costing lot less.

    They have almost 10% more hp than corsairs and a stupid 20% more models. If thats not good enough they have +4 ld more. Which itself is easily already $25 right there. If u look at both corsairs and rangers being $650. The xtra +4 ld would easily made them a $675.

    And my god that loose formation with 90 models and 40 speed. These guys r frikking top range #1 med inf in game.

    Nothing much to say really, single handedly made a huge impact in games vs tombs, liz, voast, beastman, nosca just to name a few.

    Just how the elf these guys have better stats than corsairs while having MORE models

    Before its $500 spear for
    22 att 25 dmg vs inf for helf.
    Now u get $600
    37 att 35 dmg vs inf for helf.

    Frikking absurb gap filling
    No problem paying $650-675 for these guys, wiping they crap out of those inf in these range

    It's power creep, and the high elves are the most inaccurately adapted roster in the game.
    How would you adapt them? What would you see changed?

    I would have just stuck to their army book. It's not that hard to not give Teclis and Allarielle mounts or restrict dragons to being mounts only.

    And yes Rangers are filling a roster gap, it's a unit designed to clear chaff at a price point the roster didn't have. They're just the high elf version of corsairs.
    By this measure any new unit of any kind that's not a variant of an existing unit is filling a roster gap
    Greenskins don't have Halberd infantry but CA decides to add Black Orcs w/Halberds. CA has now filled a roster gap that the roster is supposed to have.
    Which indicates that any unit of any kind that is new fills a roster gap? So how can any unit avoid this?
Sign In or Register to comment.