Suggestions for improving rangers

[D-coy]

Hey all,

Firstly, I'd like to state that I'm not a good player, but I do lurk the forums a lot. It has come to my attention that rangers are more of a liability than a covert-ops unit.

This mainly has to do with their high initially cost and that their suppressing shot ability is lacking.

I thought about improving their suppressive shot instead of adjusting their cost, or their damage.

Make the suppressive shot knock back a single target when hit, like in the campaign. This could have a chance of around 30% to happen and would help fending off commanders and other elite, small squad sized units, even if you don't have the warlock as your commander (for warp throw). Maybe you could weaken the force of the knockback to make it less abusable, but still useful. If they already do that, please forgive my lack of attention.

I don't have problem with the other ideas, I'm merely offering an alternative, less direct way of buffing rangers.

Please tell me what you think.

Here's one example of why rangers don't worth their price in Tier 1 by Hellic (copied and edited from his later post, also bear in mind that this is only a specific example vs. scouts, but could be expanded on other match-ups, thanks Hellic):


2 HUGE points:

Rangers delay teching to T2. Sniper Scouts don't. Simple as that. You want to get Rangers in T1? Have fun dealing with that Razorback while you're still researching T2. On the other hand, Space Marines have the luxury of getting the RB out first before upgrading a sniper rifle.

Rangers cost 60 req and 4 power to reinforce. Sniper Scouts only cost 35 req. Simple, yes? In a duel, any SM with half a brain can win for cost. In a skirmish with full armies, Rangers will also die a lot easier (such a frail target) and thus are a huge resource drain. Sniper Scouts aren't.

As for the duel:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
This is how a battle between rangers and scouts go
Rangers fire
Scouts get into range
Scouts fire
Rangers fire
Scouts fire THIS IS WHEN THE SMART SPACE MARINE RETREATS (i.e. what you should learn to do)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangers fire
3 dead sm
2 dead rangers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 dead Rangers, 2 dead Scouts. 50 more req and 8 more power needed to reinforce those Rangers. End of story.


Okay, here's a summary of ideas:

1. Decrease their initial power cost. Increase the power cost of their T2 upgrade by the same amount. This would make them a favorable choice in T1.

Suggestion (by FooF): Decrease price by 10 power, to 360 req/ 15 power, from 360 req/ 25 power. Increase the cost of the Pathfinder gear Tier 2 upgrade by 10 power.

2. Decrease their build cost and reinforce cost, without increasing the cost of the upgrade.

3. Give them the stillness ability when upgraded (makes their energy decrease stop while being infiltrated, but it doesn't increase for the time either). This would make them better scouts.

4. Give them the ability to dodge a single attack completely. Could be only used in long periods, like once every 5 secs, maybe only after getting the T2 upgrade.

[SteinerNein]

No.

But you know my stance on randomization - a ruiner of any game.

Instead, a cost reduction and a reinforcement reduction would be better. Specifically in the requisition department and then for the latter power etc.

[D-coy]

How about not making it random then? What about scout shotties? They do random knockback too, as far as I know. Is that right?

[Aerozap]

Unless I'm reading the Codex wrong, I think Shotgun Scouts have a 15% chance at knockdown: http://dowcodex.com/Weapon:Shotgun.

I'm thinking 30% would be too high in comparison to the Scouts and I'm not sure its necessary. In my limited time messing around with Rangers, I've seen what one squad with suppressing fire can do to a FC: constant suppression coming from the FoW that isn't as highly noticeable as a SP is pretty useful, albeit not at the current cost.

It's not a unique suggestion, but I'm for the much simpler cost reduction (along the lines of SteinerNein's suggestion).

[D-coy]

You countered my arguments and offered simpler alternatives, so I'm convinced. Thank you gentlemen.

[Gen_Khan]

I would have to agree with cost reduction.
The problem with a 15% or 30% knockback on the Rifle is that it fires once ever 8 sec. I am unsure of the refire rate of shotties but it is pretty fast.
This said, in a worst case scenario you would be causing knockback once every 1/2min (approx), thus pretty much rendering it useless.

[D-coy]

I said I agree, but noone has yet had an opinion on my suggestion of making the KB guaranteed. Would that be too powerful? Or unneeded?

[Gen_Khan]

Even 100% KB once every 8 sec would be kind of useless. The hit unit has plenty of time to get up and resume whatver he was doing. Supression is actually a very good abiity in itself, as it does huge nerf to the unit (1900% attack reduction?)
The scout KB is effective because its fast. I have lost WSEs to scout shotties because I could not telport out (IE icon greyed out because WSE is on his butt, once he gets up, he's hit again)

[D-coy]

Thanks for the explanation. I must admit that I didn't do any research on this, thus made this debate unnecessarily long. Sorry, my bad.

I only made the previous suggestion because in the campaign, this moves seems to be somewhat effective against you, the player.

Again, thanks for your time and throughout answers.

[Pigletdude]

Sorry man, but the knockback idea is null and void because of the ridiculous reload rate of the sniper, I still belive a health buff would help and if I may be so bold, a stun grenade would work wonders for them, giving them some stopping power against charging enemies, especially since they can cloak.

[Mordeinn]

A few suggestions, in order of priority (I'm a noob eldar player btw) :

1- They need to lower their cost. Yes Rangers are tricky but they are also the only unit to detect infiltrated units. Allow us to field 2 ? This would be great in 3v3 but maybe too strong in 1v1.

2- Lower the cost for their cloaking ability, that would be cool and make 1 squad usefull at something else then getting killed the moment anothere unit look at them.

3- Raise their armor a bit or their speed.

4- Since you cant really field more then one give them anothere ability. Like the possibility to put a temporary marker on anothere unit (say, scouts who come cloaked by the hundreds to snipe everything you have that is not a vehicule)

Final not : They require so much of your goddamn time they could at least be good at detecting infiltrated units. The moment they get near one they get killed (cant stay cloaked all the time and you *might* have to take care of the rest of the map sometimes.

PLease make them usefull for other kind of players then micro Gods.

[D-coy]

Is giving them the 'Stillness' ability a good idea? The one Cyrus can obtain in the campaign (infiltration only drains energy while moving).

I by no means think these are needed, just throwing ideas around for the more experienced to consider.

[Gen_Khan]

Stillness would at least make them vaible as a counter to sneaky Scouts coming to take out my D-cannon...

[Zakkaria]

I find this last suggestion noteworthy really. if i remember correctly if you got a sarg with the scouties they get that ability. not sure though.

[Aerozap]

if i remember correctly if you got a sarg with the scouties they get that ability
I was curious and unsure so I tried it. I can confirm that the Sergeant does not give Stillness - just Grenades and detection.

I like the idea for Rangers but I think it would have to be incorporated into an upgrade to be fair. Since the Pathfinder Gear already adds Infiltrate and the Holo-Field, I'm thinking adding Stillness (as a passive ability) to it would be too much for one upgrade, especially at the current price. Perhaps Stillness could be in a second, new upgrade? The issue here being you'd have to first get Pathfinder Gear to even get a benefit from the theoretical Stillness upgrade.

Regardless, vanilla Rangers would still be overpriced IMO... so I come back around to just decreasing the cost and leaving everything else alone.

[Todehy]

req and power reduction will do i think. The main problem with them is that no one uses them in their builds, and thats for a reason.

Once they are out, they can do wonders... the problem is they survability and reinforcement cost.

cuz of that, i think they must be cheaper...as being the single weakest unit in the game.

[Aetherfox]

the point was made somewhere else (another thread) that compared to scouts, rangers are vastly more expensive to reinforce

(this is because for sniper scouts + sargeant, most of the cost is in the upgrades, while for rangers, most of the cost is in the rangers themselves - and reinforcement cost is 50% of base cost only not counting upgrades - hence rangers costing twice as much as scouts to reinforce)

if ranger reinforcement cost was somehow reduced to be similar to scouts they'd be more viable, instead of the constant resource drain they are now.

[MaddoxX]

Why not giving them an upgraded sniper too?

[Gen_Khan]

Ohhhh I like
Give the option to buy more sinper rifles!

[Mooglepies]

Alternately make them fluffy. Vanilla rangers count as being in yellow cover when in open ground. When in yellow cover they count as being in green.

Upgrade should do what it currently does, and perhaps they always count as in green cover. They instantly gain some durability against shooting but have hard counters in melée units (hp is unchanged) aoe weapons (no cover bonuses) and nades (just make your head asplode).

Not that making things fluffy is always conducive to balance, but I think it fits here. Anyone who has fought rangers on tabletop knows that they're mean bastards when in heavy cover but as soon as you assault them or get a flamer then they've had it.

[BowlingHanshees]

The main problem with Rangers is their weakness to ASM. A good player will never let his opponent shoot his Rangers but a jump + knockback will almost surely kill them, especially with Combat Stims.

A better solution would be to make Rangers immune to knockback in all states and give them a bigger FoF buff. That way, ASM can still be used as a counter but will not mean instant death for the squad if it gets jumped.

[hellic]

^^ But you don't use them against other races either. Also, Zoans are "weak" to ASM and can easily die if jumped on. Yet you still see HTs and LAs using Zoans.

Rangers' main problem is still cost. Too high of an initial power cost + limited usefulness = better to go T2. Expensive to reinforce + incredibly frail = constant resource drain.

Also, balance section?

[Mooglepies]

Yeah, this could use a shove to the balance section.

[SteinerNein]

All randomization in the game needs to be removed period. There is no reason to have it when you're talking about game balance.

Rangers simply need a cost reduction at tier 1 and possibly a reinforcement cost reduction. That's all. =p

[MaddoxX]

They could give rangers an ability to doge attack.

[BowlingHanshees]

Why would that be better than simply buffing HP? HP isn't the issue, anyway.

[MaddoxX]

They will have the chance to evade power full sniper attack sometimes.

[MasterBlaster]

Some facts about Rangers eldar players fail to notice.

Rangers have FAR longer range then Scout Snipers
Rangers Do more damage then scout snipers.
Rangers cost less req then scout snipers without sarg.
Rangers cost less power then scout snipers without sarg
Rangers can detect stealth while scout have to upgrade to sarge
Rangers are tier1 Scouts sniper and sarge(stealth detection) is tier2
Rangers take 33% less population cap per squad then a Scout Sniper with Sarge.
Rangers can Supress

Downside of scout snipers to rangers all of the above.

downside of rangers over scout snipers
You need to pay energy to replace squad members
You dont get a craptastic grenade that requires 2-3 to kill a single guardian squad.


So please explain everyone who thinks rangers need a buff, why scout snipers shouldnt get one?

[Ceorl]

Instead, a cost reduction and a reinforcement reduction would be better.

I disagree with this idea because all it does is turn Rangers into Scouts with sniper rifles. I would prefer a way to differeniate between the two units like Mooglepies suggestion. My thought is that a Ranger squad should be able to beat a Scout squad in sniper combat and not the other way around as it is currently.


So please explain everyone who thinks rangers need a buff, why scout snipers shouldnt get one?

Scouts beat Rangers hands down through attrition and can take more damage because of their leader, so if you we are doing a direct comparison you should keep this in mind. And I know because I use Rangers regularly in my games.

[Jaskanator]

I think that only things that rangers need are cost reduction especially on power, the cost of ranger extra equipment on the other hand could be increased. Also to make to them more usefull in later tiers I'd like them to get extra health/damage in with their ranger upgrade. Or maybe even give them alternate upgrade and you have to choose from either stealth/conceal or better damage/health. That would make them really intresting and dow 2 is seriously lacking in unit upgrades.

[MasterBlaster]

Have you ACTUALLY tried it?
Rangers win with 1(if not in cover) or more members left, rangers dont seemto miss if the enemy target is in cover, scouts do.
Rangers have a longer range and shoot first.

A scout squad with sarge attached DOES beat the ranger squad, however its quite probable you lost the sarge and your losses despite keeping your squad are heafty.
Further more, scouts snipers cost more, are a tier2 upgrade, and your saying tier1 unit with tier1 upgrades should beat it.

Please explain why snipers with sarge with cost 420req/60 power and are tier2 should lose to a unit that costs 360req 25 power.

As it is now they JUST barely win and if both units are in cover they lose.


The real problem with rangers is
A guardin squad with plasma grenade is far more effective.


BTW
4 ranger squads=
36 pop
1440 req
100 power

3 Scout sniper squads with sarges=
36 pop
1260 req
180 power

If you focused fire from the rangers, an entire sniper squad is destroyed before the scouts can get into range to return fire.

If you want to claim atrittion then look at the power requirements.

Just to match power costs SM has to force you to reinforce 20 times without losing a single sarge.

To beat rangers requires 1vs1 for squads and only up till the critical 4 limit is reached, afterwhich sm needs an extra squad to act as draw fire and die.

Matching Eldar squad for squad is atrittion loss for SM not eldar, because it uses more pop for sm and means they get less income so even when both sides aint engaged in combat SM are losing.


If rangers get a buff, there popcap needs to be increased to 12 or more and there cost has to go up, not down.

[Aerozap]

Please explain why snipers with sarge with cost 420req/60 power and are tier2 should lose to a unit that costs 360req 25 power.

Well, that's not entirely true because SM start with a Scout squad and you're not factoring in the cost for Pathfinder Gear so that both squads have the comparible Infiltrate ability. It's more like 210/60 (T2) versus 405/35 (T2) for the first Scout Sniper + Sarge versus the first Pathfinder Gear Ranger. Or, if we look only at what they need to be snipers with no other upgrades: 150/35 (T2 + infiltrate) versus 360/25 (T1 + detection).

Looking at it this way, Rangers cost less power overall but more requisition assuming you're upgrading your first Scout squad. Considering that SM is less power hungry and more requisition hungry than Eldar overall, this makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is that Rangers reinforce for 60/4 while Scouts reinforce for 35/0. Obviously, if the Scout Sergeant dies, that's another 60/25, but doesn't 60/4 for a single weak Ranger seem a little high?

The balance issue is that Rangers are nowhere near as useful in the Eldar army as sniper Scouts are in the SM army. They have less health than Scouts and die faster - they don't get upgrades to help them defensively like Scouts do (Scout Sergeant adds health to the squad). Scouts run slightly faster unless the Rangers use FoF, at the cost of damage. Rangers don't scale anywhere near as well as Scouts do and they cost more initially to the Eldar army than Scouts do to the SM army. If they run into a blob of enemies, they can't throw a grenade (which you seem to be underestimating as the DPS for a Frag Grenade is only slightly lower than a GU Plasma Grenade minus the suppression) and run like Scouts can - Rangers simply run. Let's not forget that Rangers can't repair vehicles like Scouts can. Rangers are simply not as versatile. All Rangers get that Scouts don't is suppression, which is very useful, the Holo-field, which is less useful, FoF, slightly better damage, and better range (keeping in mind you can't have the better damage plus FoF or plus the suppression).

Simply comparing overall Scout sniper costs to Ranger costs is not a realistic comparison. When was the last time you played a game where your Sniper spam lost to Ranger spam and that decided the game? Other units besides just Scouts and Rangers WILL be involved (at the very least, one GU squad!). Whereas Scout sniper spam may be an effective strategy at times, Ranger spam is certainly not. Rather than just comparing overall costs of one unit to its counterpart in another army, one should look at how that unit behaves to support the rest of the army. Scouts are simply more cost effective and multi-use than Rangers. Upgrading one Scout squad will not put an SM player behind in getting to the worthwhile units in his army (Tacs, ASMs, T2 RB etc.) whereas buying and upgrading one Ranger squad CAN put the Eldar player behind in getting to the worthwhile units in his army (Banshees, T2 WL, T2 WS, T3 FP, etc.).

Nevertheless, I agree with you that Rangers don't need an offensive buff. I do think, however, that they need an initial cost and/or reinforce cost reduction.

[MasterBlaster]

Man eldar want everything.

Howabout you actually do the math about costs.

Assuming the sarg stayed alive(and you need a sarge for snipers to beat rangers)
the min a full scoutsquad costs to reinforce is 105req
ranger squad reinforcement back to full is 120/8 assuming you lose 2 members.

You only have a 25% chance NOT to lose your sarge.
60/25

75% chance of 130/25 reinforcement cost
25% chance of 105req reinforcement cost(wow 15less then the ranger squad ohh my how bloody imbalanced)

75% of all engagements with a rangersquad
the scoutmarine squad actually has the higher reinforcement costs
NOT THE RANGERS.

The rangers
Get 3 shots off due to having a far longer range and slightly higher vision.
killing 3 members of the Sniper squad then hit retreat as soon as the thirdshot fires, even if they are still in range of the return sniperfire the last ranger wont die due to 80% damage reduction.

Gee look at that, it turns out that while Rangers are effectively SLIGHTLY more expensive on average for reinforcement for req, its Snipers which are extremly more expensive on power.

Then once again, once you get 4 ranger squads massed they instantly kill a scout squad.

SO to just force a draw
SM has to bring an entire extra snipersquad.
Which is lost
and which means the req balance isnt a draw.
Once you have sufficent numbers of ranger squads they already own scout snipers.

Once again
Rangers take 9pop
Scout with sarge take 12

You want a unit that can kill scouts snipers that is cheaper then scouts, that costs less pop then scouts, and costs far less to reinforce then a full scout squad.

AM I correct in this?

and you think this is fair and balanced
Correct?

[FooF]

Personally, I think the best fix would be to drop the initial price of Rangers down by 10 Power and add 10 Power to the Pathfinder Gear in T2.

The initial price is what keeps Rangers from being built. If they were cheaper, it wouldn't be so tough of a loss and the reinforcement cost might be a little easier to bear. Yes, they're still very vulnerable to CC, but that just goes with the territory.

No one is going to build a ton of them in T1 because it would delay teching and they're hard-countered by an early vehicle. In T2, they're finally true Snipers that can sneak around.

The Stillness ability does sound kind of cool. It wouldn't drain Energy but it wouldn't recover it either. They'd be the ultimate scout unit, which, I think is pretty fair.

[BudgetMessiah]

You only have a 25% chance NOT to lose your sarge.

Yeah? How'd you work that out?

[Aerozap]

Howabout you actually do the math about costs

I did. You forgot that SM start with a single Scout squad and that SM needs to tech to T2 for Snipers/Sergeants. You didn't factor in the initial GU squad the Eldar player starts with, either. You also forgot to include in the totals that SM need to tech to Tier 2 for the Sergeant and Sniper upgrades.

It should really look like this:

4 ranger squads (unupgraded) + GU (unupgraded)=
46 pop
1440 req
100 power

3 Scout sniper squads with sarges + Tier 2=
36 pop
1300 req
225 power

Even using this math, the Eldar player had to pay more requisition and is taking up more popcap. The SM player had to pay 125 more power for two less units... but just because you paid more power doesn't mean you should automatically win in a fight.

My point is that math isn't everything. Your math is based entirely on two armies building nothing except Sniper Scouts and Rangers. Who the hell does that? You wouldn't build Rangers to combat Scout Sniper spam if you were Eldar because one Wraithlord or Falcon would do the job (and more) better. You wouldn't build Scout Snipers to combat Ranger spam if you were SM because a Razorback for a tiny fraction of the cost would do the job (and more) better.

The realistic truth is that SM paying 150/35 in T2 to upgrade his Scouts with a sniper to get marginally worse sniper support with Infiltrate and Repair is not gimping his teching speed anywhere close to the Eldar player paying 360/25 in T1 for marginally better sniper support with Detection and Suppressive Fire. It's not like the Eldar player can just stay in T1, after all.

Thus, IMO, a reduction in cost for Rangers (even a slight one like FooF suggested) is a reasonable suggestion.

[MasterBlaster]

God your a nut
4 rangers defeat 3 scout squads completely
eliminate them.
SM has to bring 5 scout squads to beat 4 ranger squads
if you dont believe me IM quite happy to lab it for you and then we can upload to google a video.

1vs1 scouts win
only if they have a sarge
if they dont have a sarge they lose
Yet they cost more power

With a sarge if eldar micros and withdraws as soon as the last ranger fires and kills the second last scout squad member SM has a 75% chance of actually having to pay more to reinforce not eldar.


This is how a battle between rangers and scouts go
Rangers fire
Scouts get into range
Scouts fire
Rangers fire
Scouts fire
Rangers fire
3 dead sm
2 dead rangers

Eldar just has to hit retreat at this point to come out ahead on average, in resources.


Also since you want to take it all into account, eldar needs under HALF power.
So they only need to build half the generators.

Budget one out of 4 is 25% 4 man squad 1 man walks away alive, who that is is random. 25% its your sarge.

Also through all of this your failed to take into account SNIPERS MISS
RANGERS DONT

You cant include tier1 starting units or tier2 cost in a direct comparison.
Its easy to argue its unlikely for scout to survive to tier2 if thats all the units sm is building, or that rangers tier1 can force mapcontrol since rangers kill scout squads completely.
Then add the cost of a dead SM hero because the tier1 rangers can surpress him and let your hero kill him when he tries to retreat after chasing you around under suspression.

101 things can be argued and hence has to be discarded.
It can also be argued Eldar have a better tier1 and so can get better mapcontrol giving them more resources, and where sm shine is with tacs tier2 which you dont have cause you have snipers.

[Todehy]

God your a nut
4 rangers defeat 3 scout squads completely
eliminate them.
SM has to bring 5 scout squads to beat 4 ranger squads
if you dont believe me IM quite happy to lab it for you and then we can upload to google a video.

1vs1 scouts win
only if they have a sarge
if they dont have a sarge they lose
Yet they cost more power

With a sarge if eldar micros and withdraws as soon as the last ranger fires and kills the second last scout squad member SM has a 75% chance of actually having to pay more to reinforce not eldar.


This is how a battle between rangers and scouts go
Rangers fire
Scouts get into range
Scouts fire
Rangers fire
Scouts fire
Rangers fire
3 dead sm
2 dead rangers

Eldar just has to hit retreat at this point to come out ahead on average, in resources.


Also since you want to take it all into account, eldar needs under HALF power.
So they only need to build half the generators.

Budget one out of 4 is 25% 4 man squad 1 man walks away alive, who that is is random. 25% its your sarge.

Also through all of this your failed to take into account SNIPERS MISS
RANGERS DONT

You cant include tier1 starting units or tier2 cost in a direct comparison.
Its easy to argue its unlikely for scout to survive to tier2 if thats all the units sm is building, or that rangers tier1 can force mapcontrol since rangers kill scout squads completely.
Then add the cost of a dead SM hero because the tier1 rangers can surpress him and let your hero kill him when he tries to retreat after chasing you around under suspression.

101 things can be argued and hence has to be discarded.
It can also be argued Eldar have a better tier1 and so can get better mapcontrol giving them more resources, and where sm shine is with tacs tier2 which you dont have cause you have snipers.

There is a reason for rangers to ALMOST NEVER be used in eldar builds while sniper scouts excel in what they do.
You come late to the discussion and want to prove that all of us which has been discussing this matter for ages...are in fact totally wrong or we have missed soemthing really important that u dont.

Rangers delay teching. When rangers come out, ull get most likely a razorback in ur face!. They die a lot even in the hands of a skilled players...and cost a gazillion times more to reinforce.... They are squishy as hell and just a sniff kill them, sending all that investment down teh drain and for a race that is actually very power hungry, that is suicidal. IM not saying they suck, they are fine but their cost and maintenance is just a price to high to pay for a unit that doesnt deserve it. In other words, is more a gamble than an actual strat to use them. And they are not viable against all the races. So far... they fare very well aganist orks... but nids and SM rape them. Thats a fact.

Scouts are a core squad for SM, rangers arent.
Also u are comparing unit vs unit....when in an actual game.. they will rarely fight each other , or will be supported by other units which render the rangers uselesss.

Your examples are too situational. Now, answer me...why on earth everybody argue about rangers being not pratical, while u are the ONLY one on earth who is very sure that is totally the other way?.

Good night.

[FooF]

Let's tone it down, guys.

@ MasterBlaster

Comparing Scouts to Rangers is a silly exercise simply because the situation you are advocating that show Rangers as far superior would never, ever, happen in a real game.

Theorycrafting aside, Rangers are not cost effective in the current state of the game. They're too much power when they are most effective (T1, when they have no real counter minus jumping in them) and then aren't as flexible in T2 as their Scout counterparts, which, if the SM player kept them alive, cost only the Sniper upgrade to make a Sniper unit (if you wanted to continue you to argue Scout vs. Ranger). Rangers cost the full amount to every Eldar player out there because they don't start with them.

Saying "Rangers are fine b/c they're better than Scout Snipers" is a disingenuous argument because it only works if all the other variables were the same, when they are not even remotely similar. Eldar have a completely different meta-game than SM and their need for Power and keeping units at range and alive are quite different as well.

While Scout Snipers are the closest equivalent unit to Rangers, the army that Scouts are a part is vastly different than the army Rangers are a part of. They have different roles in those armies and at present, it's nearly unanimous that Rangers are more of a liability in the Eldar army than anything. The same cannot be said of Scouts because the SM army operates differently and because Scouts are always going to be available since you start with them. It becomes apples and oranges in the end.

[MasterBlaster]

Its not apples and oranges, were compareing a unit that has the exact same function, not normal scouts, sniperscouts to rangers, they both have the same function scouts get a grenade rangers get suspression and I would argue the suspression is better.

arguing that SM get scouts at the start so they should be weaker is stupidity.

This is WHAT eldar players want.

A tier1 unit which has the same fuction as another races tier2 unit.
But which is cheaper
But which has NO DOWNSIDES compared to other unit.

Its also rather odd that tier1 rangers hitpoints do effect them, but come tier2 with massed units plasma etc, scouts are no better off the die just as quick when under fire.

Just because rangers aint useful doesnt mean there not balanced, it means that eldar has other better options then building them.

If you want them useful thats an entirely seperate thing to buffing them.
Drop there damage so they always suspress tier1
Tier2 allow them to have an upgrade to increase there damage to there current level.

[Aerozap]

Let's say your 3 Scout Sniper Squads with Sergeants do happen to be up against 4 Rangers (with no upgrades), as unlikely as that may be. Would you perhaps be more acceptable of a cost reduction for Rangers if the Snipers had a way to win this fight?

Say your 3 Sniper Scouts Infiltrate. They run up just far enough so that they can fire on the Rangers from Infiltration - thus getting the first shots and instantly killing one of the Ranger squads (3 shots at 170 damage are enough to kill off the 300 health Ranger squad). The problem here is detection, right? Well, Rangers have a detection range of 30. Sniper Scouts have a range of 55. Thus, unless I'm interpreting the Codex wrong, your Sniper Scouts can get off three shots before the Rangers detect them. Now the fight is 3 Scout Snipers versus 3 Rangers - would you not say the Scouts have the advantage now?

I'm really going out on a limb here, and I'd have to lab this to be sure, but if your 3 Scout Snipers CAN beat the 4 Rangers in the very example YOU provided, would you feel more inclined to let us have a little cost reduction? Am I missing something?

[FooF]

@ MasterBlaster

You've completely side-stepped my point. Rangers in the Eldar army are used differently than Scout Snipers in the SM army. Whether they are completely equal or not doesn't matter because though similar, they are not identical. There are many squads across the races that share a similar role but do not fit the same piece of the puzzle that makes up the entire army. ASM and Stormboyz share the same "jump troop" role but ASM fit more in the "first in" pattern than Stormboyz that are best used by jumping behind enemy lines that are already pre-occupied with Sluggas and Shootas. Same type of unit, different role. Rangers and Sniper Scouts are no different. In the Eldar army, Rangers (if more viable) would be excellent scouts and useful in taking out targets of opportunity. They also support their armies via the AoE cloak. They can also suppress in a pinch. They're support troops that snipe. Scout Snipers, in the SM army, have a wall of Tacs or ASM to hide behind and also can grenade entrenched positions. They're much more offensively oriented. They don't support anything barring the occasional repair and detection.

They are not identical so there's no point in balancing one around the other. The point of this thread is not to balance Snipers vs. Rangers but to bring Rangers into a position that they're used and not sidelined the entire game. Whether or not Scout Snipers can fulfill the same role as Rangers for less cost is besides the point. We currently see 50x as many Scout Snipers as we do Rangers. There's reasons for that and it's not because Scout Snipers are Ranger wannabes. Sniping works if the pros outweigh the cons.

Currently, Scout Snipers have a lot of pros for them. 1.) you get a free Scout squad at the beginning of the game which you can upgrade with a sniper rifle at will in T2 2.) they gain infiltration for the cost of the upgrade 3.) they compliment Tacs and ASM from behind the lines and can take out high priority targets while other troops are tied up 4.) they can cap better due to infiltration 5.) they're cheap to reinforce

Rangers have very few of those pros and many cons: 1.) they're expensive up front 2.) they stall teching to T2 due to said cost 3.) they cost a lot to reinforce 4.) they can't infiltrate until T2 and for additional cost 5.) they're just as vulnerable as Scouts to melee but unlike scouts, they reinforce for a much higher price 6.) like scouts, they do cap better with infiltration 7.) like scouts, they can target enemies of opportunity but unlike scouts, they don't have meat shields up front because Eldar don't really have a lot of meat shields 8.) unlike scouts, they can support an army from behind the lines but this involves more Power and T2

The Ranger cons outweigh the pros by a fair margin. Take away some of the cons, or add a few more pros, and they're cost effective. Right now, they're not. The Eldar army does not have the same staying power as SM and so Rangers cannot operate with the same impunity that Scout Snipers can. Even if caught, Scout Snipers reinforce for much less, giving them a huge advantage should casualties occur.

Basically, the major cons for Rangers are their price. They're good units but they cost too much for what they do and they stall teching too much. Decrease their price and Rangers become useful again. You can't reduce them too much because then they become too powerful for cost but you can mitigate that with increased price on the "goodies" in T2 that allow them to support the army. That's why I advocated a decrease in initial price. It kills 3 birds with one stone. It makes them a more attractive choice early, it doesn't punish the Eldar player trying to tech nearly as badly and reinforcement cost is a little more manageable (at least Power-wise). They're never going to be as cost-effective as Scout Snipers but they have a myriad of other benefits that will make up for it once they get in to everyday play. Concealed armies is a huge boon for shooty races like Eldar and coupled with suppression and single-target damage, Rangers can become a powerful player in the Eldar army.

[Todehy]

Definitely. They have their uses, but the price is just too much. They will sooner or later get engaged or shooted by something...and ur economy will suffer from that.
The meatshield theory is totally true...because they cannot get behind something.. as we do not have tacs or asaults to protect them.

They are surely good units but they cannot be incorporated to the eldar army succesfully to really make an impact.

The price, the problem is all about the price and reinforce cost.

[MasterBlaster]

Foof
How about you read
Scout sniper squads are more expenisve to reinforce(when totals are taken) then ranger squads.
Rangers are also a hell of alot cheaper in power.

How about you also have some play experiance.
Do tell me EXACTLY which highvalue target a single scout sniper squad can kill.

Snipers have to be massed to be worth there cost, and they need to be on the battlefield for quite awhile before they earn this cost back.

You argue rangers are a diffrent unit with a diffrent role.
I said
If rangers get a price increase or health increase or both they need to be nerfed somewhere aswell.

Otherwise
They are
Just a cheaper better version of scout snipers that use less popcap and far less energy.


PS-Scout snipers cost more to reinforce on average if sarge is built, and losses taken.
Both rangers and scouts die to everything in seconds tier2.


The only diffrence is they have 1 extra member and so may survive something a rangersquad wont.

You claim they are diffrent units with diffrent roles but that rangers should be more effective as the role scout snipers have.

Did you goto advanced-logic classes for that lovely bent logic?

BTW your logic fails! again when it comes to nids.

Scout snipers are one of the most effective counters to tier2 nids zanth and warrior spam.

IF rangers are cheaper then scouts
Have equilent hitpoints of scouts
and have the far longer range they currently have.
Eldar doesnt need to go tier2 untill nids goes tier3

Because despite you saying rangers fill a diffrent role then scout snipers, they happen to be more effective in that role that they surposedly dont do....

[hellic]

I don't think MasterBlaster a) has any reading comprehension skills and b) can count the number of games he's played as Eldar on one hand.

2 HUGE points that you clearly don't understand:

Rangers delay teching to T2. Sniper Scouts don't. Simple as that. You want to get Rangers in T1? Have fun dealing with that Razorback while you're still researching T2. On the other hand, Space Marines have the luxury of getting the RB out first before upgrading a sniper rifle.

Rangers cost 60 req and 4 power to reinforce. Sniper Scouts only cost 35 req. Simple, yes? In a duel, any SM with half a brain can win for cost. In a skirmish with full armies, Rangers will also die a lot easier (such a frail target) and thus are a huge resource drain. Sniper Scouts aren't.

As for the duel:

This is how a battle between rangers and scouts go
Rangers fire
Scouts get into range
Scouts fire
Rangers fire
Scouts fire THIS IS WHEN THE SMART SPACE MARINE RETREATS (i.e. what you should learn to do)
Rangers fire
3 dead sm
2 dead rangers2 dead Rangers, 2 dead Scouts. 50 more req and 8 more power needed to reinforce those Rangers. End of story.

[D-coy]

Updated the first post, so future posters have a better idea of what's going on. :)

[FooF]

Thank you hellic and OP for the first-post.

I'm not going to write another wall of text.

My question is, would you get Rangers in T1, even if they were 360/15? They're slightly cheaper than Banshees but Banshees scale into T2 better. Is the Power decrease enough to warrant getting Rangers over Banshees?

[D-coy]

Included a portion Hellic's post, as to provide a reason for changes, making the job for future posters even easier.

@ FooF

I'm by no means experienced enough, but I think people would still go for Gu equipment first. Now if rangers were around 300/15, or 320/20 I might consider it. I don't know if this would lead to ranger spam though.

Also, I updated the first post with your suggested price.

[Garfiesl]

One might actually consider getting both.

[Sabulum]

Ugh no dropping in ranger initial cost. We don't need more sniper spam in this game. Drop the reinforcement cost, by all means, but leave the initial price alone. Getting them out quicker and being able to spam them more is not a good alternative.

[MasterBlaster]

hellic Rangers are cheaper then Scouts even to reinforce.
lets review PROPERLY shall we and not give dcoy anymore FALSE information for him to abuse.

Simulated meeting of Rangers vs Scouts.
After volly swapping and the fact rangers get first fire.

1 Dead scout
NO dead rangers
Rangers retreated
Scouts on the field

1 dead scout
1 dead ranger
Scout squad retreated
Rangers on the field

2 dead scouts
1 dead ranger
Ranger Squad retreated
Scouts on the field

2 dead scouts
2 dead rangers
Scout squad retreated
Rangers on the field

3 dead scouts(if no sarge scout squad destroyed)
2 dead rangers.
1 man ranger squad still on the field
Eldar retreated if scout had sarge
1man Scout squad on the field.

Reinforcement costs for eldar immdeately after fireing a shot and the option to retreat or take enemy fire.
Eldar 0
Eldar 60/4
120/8
360/25 if whole squad is lost.

Costs for Sm immdeately after fireing a shot and the option to retreat or take enemy fire. Cost is without sage:avg cost with sarge.
35:41/6.25
70:82/12.50
360/35(3man squad lost they didnt retreat)
123/18.75

So what do we know?
Only way for scouts to force rangers off the field is to build a sarge, with a sarge scouts cost more energy per reinforcement on avg then rangers.
Scouts also cost 3 more req to reinforce then the ranger squad.
Scouts however DO have the field and can target other units if there not threatend.

For scouts to come out ahead in req they have to withdraw
Leaving rangers with the field, with the ability to target other units if not threatend.

This however only holds true for 1vs1
when number of units increases 2vs2 to 3vs3 eldar retains both the field further and further favour rangers not scouts for cost.

The effectiveness of rangers is DIRECTLY due to there ablity to draw first blood due to there awesome range.

Now anyone want to take into account suspression.

Well im gonna
it just so HAPPENS
THat if rangers switch on suspression they can kite a sniper squad and kill it without suffering ANY losses.
The cool thing with suspression is while it does do less damage it fires twice as fast and guess how many hits it takes to kill a sniper......2-3 8-12 seconds

I think, I cant say it is fact till I lab it but ranger using suspression should beable to kill a 2 members before scouts get into range while being suspressed.(assuming rangers stay still)

This means that sm pays 70/0 vs eldar 60/4 cost stock if snipers retreat as soon as they kill a single ranger in this fashion.

[Todehy]

Ugh no dropping in ranger initial cost. We don't need more sniper spam in this game. Drop the reinforcement cost, by all means, but leave the initial price alone. Getting them out quicker and being able to spam them more is not a good alternative.

If they are kept as it is, they still will not be used. Their initial cost is also part of the problem. And with the cost decrease proposed, they will not bea treat anyways cuz of their different functionality and durability in comparison with snipers. Also, it would be silly , since a fast vehicle would render them useless. They are just squishy in comparison with scouts snipers.

[hellic]

Why do you think Rangers fire first? Because their rifles have longer range (65)?

Too bad Rangers and Scouts have the same (55) sight radius. Both sides will fire at almost the same time (maybe Rangers fire first if they're cloaked and the Scouts are Cyrus-less, but you won't have time to retreat before the Scouts shoot back). So all your scenarios and hard work are based on a false assumption.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're so focused on the Rangers vs. Scouts duel. In any real battle, the enemy will focus his attention on killing your Rangers with his whole army (since they're so frail and costly). He's definitely going to kill at least one, quite possibly even two or three of them (melee!). On the other hand, if you try to kill the Scouts first, you're not going to accomplish as much. While Scouts are frail, they're also very cheap to reinforce.

Bottom line, Rangers are a huge resource drain. Scouts are not. End of comparison.

P.S. Try using Rangers in a real game.

[MasterBlaster]

First off other units can spot, along with using caped points for vision.
A unit such as a hero ahead of the rangers in cover is protected from sniperfire, on the otherhand rangers dont seem to miss shooting into cover.
Scouts firerange is 55? I thought it was 50, since they never ever shoot a unit they can see from edge of vision but move closer before fireing I assume 55 range is wrong or there bugged.
Try them

PS-I happen to have been playing eldar almost nonstop and just spamming rangers.
Ive found a weakness is that they cant repair vehicles like scoutsnipers can and this does infact give SM an advantage, however I still maintain Rangers dont need a buff, they maybe ineffective tier1 but that happens to be a problem with the rest of eldars units and progression.


PS_I suggest you watch rangers and scouts, rangers die easier to ranged fire then scouts, however when it comes to melee units both rangers and scouts are instantly gibbed by most melee specilists.

ASM jumping at a scout sniper squad or a ranger squad is going to wipe it, sm has a SLIGHTLY higher chance of suviving.

I say make rangers so they can only suspress tier1 they still do decent damage to soft targets with suspression, and suspressing squads on the move such as sluggaboys will increase the lifeexpanctancy of guardins and even work vs nids.

Then you can reduce there price, which will give them a lower reinfocement price, but to match snipers tier2 they will have to invest in an upgrade.

Call it something like refit.

Yet every eldar player just wants them to get a health bonus and a price reduction tier1 with no thought to what happens after in tiers 2 and 3.

[hellic]

1. Sure, other units can spot. Heroes can spot. But your enemy has these too. And he'll focus fire on your Rangers with them, costing your 60/4 or 120/8 in the blink of an eye.

2. DoWCodex says Sniper range is 55.

3. Spamming Rangers? That will only work in team games against noobs. Oh, and spamming Scouts are much more effective because, guess what? Scouts aren't such a resource drain. Address the issue please.

4. "Slightly" higher? Cyrus-less Scouts have 40% more HP than Rangers. Do the math.

5.

I say make rangers so they can only suspress tier1 they still do decent damage to soft targets with suspressionDefine "decent damage". If it's any more than what they do now with Suppressive Fire, then Shurikens are (even more) useless. If it's the same or any less, Rangers won't be worth getting in T1. Why would you want such a convoluted "solution"?

Really, it's very, very simple. Reduce base power cost and slightly reduce reinforcement price. To compensate, increase the cost of T2 Pathfinder gear. Solves both problems with Rangers.


with no thought to what happens after in tiers 2 and 3See above. Numerous people have already suggested increasing the upgrade cost. You just haven't paid attention.

[Codex]

i'm with hellic on this. maybe if we could find a problem with the proposed solution and we'll go from there instead of getting hung up over scout snipers vs rangers?

my issue with reducing base cost is rangers coming out faster than they already do and steiner uses them to great effect in his double SP ranger build. if they're out even earlier triple suppression is going to hurt the opponent. a lot.

[MasterBlaster]

IM afriad you havnt paid attention.

Ive already said rangers are cheap energywise.
in my games so far Energy hasnt been a problem except in getting that first squad out, late game tier2 energy becomes completely unimportant its there req that is the only limiting factor.
If there going to get a energy reduction of 10 which includes a reinforcement reduction in energy, they need a incresae of tier2 upgrade of atleast 15.

[Codex]

masterblaster, i would have to disagree about rangers being cheap energy wise.

as a primarily SM/eldar player i can say that ASMs are hard to reinforce. why? because 91/4 is expensive. but req is not always the limiting factor. try reinforcing units for 91/4 a pop when your opponents are aggressively denying your power. now you've got an issue. keep reinforcing these units or get the upgrades? what about using req to put more gens? if you reinforce then you can't put down gens, if you don't put down gens you won't get power to reinforce in the long run (+10 power income isn't going to get you through the game). usually for SM it's reinforce due to the nature of their small army.

now take rangers. for 60/4 a pop you're reinforcing units that are MUCH more fragile. plus eldar is an extremely power hungry race with upgrades left right and centre to maximise their potential (unless they're plats). now factor in being aggressively power denied. 4 power everytime you lose a member starts to add up...

and if you're finding that req is your limiting factor in late tier 2 game you're probably building too much power. often you want to get the balance just right so you can get a squad out a bit faster. in 1v1s i aim for around a maximum float of 100 power in the late game.

[Noble]

MasterBlaster:In balance discussions you can't just take two units from different factions and make a one to one comparison like you are doing. It doesn't present a realistic depiction of the current game balance because in a real game there are so many other factors involved when two units interact. This is why balance is such a delicate and tricky thing to pull off.

In short, please stop making this one to one comparison between rangers and scouts. Sure, rangers might be better than scouts (this is by no means certain) when they face each other alone, with no other factors involved, but that doesn't necessarily indicate an imbalance, since the marines may have other tools at their disposal to deal with rangers (just as the Eldar may have other tools to deal with those tools! ;))

If you want to continue to claim that rangers are not in need of a balance change, please address the central argument that has been brought up over and over again. The purchase of rangers slows tier 2 down to the point that it is going to be very difficult for the eldar player to recover. In the current meta-game, hitting T2 and getting that falcon or that WL out is critical, other wise you are simply going to get steamrolled by other T2 units, most notably razorbacks.

[BudgetMessiah]

The only concern I have regarding rangers being "improved" is that I already have to deal with mass scout-sniper nonsense in team games. I don't want to encourage Eldar to emulate this strategy, but with fleet-footed, AoE-conceal Rangers, which would be decidedly more irritating.

[MasterBlaster]

Noble I never claimed RANGERS didnt need changes, I said they DIDNT need a buff.
But apparently for eldar this is the same as saying they dont need a change.

How about you adress my argument since I DID adress that argument
For rangers to get a change they need to get a nerf, with a tier2 upgrade that brings them back into current effectiveness was my example.

You on the otherhand seem to be aruging along with almost everyone else that they shouldnt.
Well how about asm come with antivehicle ability tier1.

Budget is worried about mass rangers.

GO try this
Go play a 3vs3 game
and just spam rangers
dont even bother going to tier2

You will find something intresting, you can force the enemy infantry to constantly retreat including sm missile tacs letting your partners build the more powerful units or vehicles.
OF course any suggestion that rangers have there damage reduced or somesuch till tier2 is of course ignored.

Lets review other units
VS nids Rangers can counter tier2 units which are expensive(well nids "expensive")
Tier1 such as zanths
As they currently are.

If you want to see rangers shine, stick them in a building tier1 while there enabled on suspression

Putting units in buildings tier1 is suicide vs orc and eldar or sm tac with flamer.
Yet
Rangers can suspress stikkbomb squads and guardin squads and flamer tacs almost instantly. Negating them as a counter when you stick a wpe in the same building you can get a nonremoveable chokepoint till tier2, or force sm to build mutiple tacs with mutiple flamers and leaving them with 2 squads that cant get missiles or plasma.

Eldar can go mutiple grenade squads and wipe the rangersquad, but most other tier1 squads besides tacs that are in buildings get gibbed by a single plasma grenade.
However if you have another guardinsqiad nearby you can suspress and grenade forcing withdraw. Meaning you win.

I would also you havnt responded to one of my points, rangers vs nids eldar doesnt need to goto tier2 untill nids is tier3 and building fexes. IF nids get a slight nerf which it looks like they will, and rangers stay the same, they will be even better vs nids then they currently are.

That said fleshhooks can devastate ranger squads and cost alot of money, but this holds true for every other race and is more of a problem with fleshhooks.


Lastly
Noble
The 1to1 compare is valid, because currently some races have trouble countering snipers, and in team games there extremly effective.

Once you reach a certain ammount of scouts they become almost unstopable to any infantry army, rangers can currently be used the same way but you want to make them even cheaper.(and they can be argued more effective because they have 30% or so longer range)

By giving them a nerf to damage or such tier1 and only letting it come back up to current tier2 and THEN droping there price you are forcing the eldar player to goto tier2 instead of just spamming the rangers tier1 in such as team games.

Once you have sufficent mass cloaking isnt required very oftern and can be ignored if its a teamgame and your behind friendly units like dreads and wl.


Tell me why, simply reducing there damage tier1 is such a bad thing to make them cheaper and have higher hitpoints?

[Wafflecopter]

I've got an idea.

A lot of people are saying that the cost of the rangers will delay your teching, and allow your opponent to get a RB quickly. How about adding an (starting) ability that allows Rangers to stun a vehicle for 5 seconds (The vehicle cant move, maybe still shoot). This would allow you to get in a grenade or two.

[Codex]

why wouldn't the player just rush warp spiders still? warp spiders actually do damage with their grenades.

[Wafflecopter]

Clay, this discussion is on RANGERS, not WS's. Furthermore, I'd love to see someone rush WS's. Besides that, WS's need to get close to a RB for their grenade to work. What Im proposing is a long range shot to "pin" a vehicle, and enable a few GU's to FoF in, nade it and force the SM player to be a bit cautious.

[Codex]

the discussion is about rangers, but if there's a better alternative than the vehicle disable would just be obsolete so not a particularly important buff. tele double grenade does a lot of damage, and you can still FoF in with GUs. just pinning it at range is not going to make a SM player cautious. you might argue that a BL+ ranger would be good then, but then why not just go WS+ BL? either way, tele-nade with anything else (BL, WS, wraith) would be better than any pinning ability that rangers would have, making the ability obsolete.

unless of course we change it to something comparable to a warp blast and giving it some healthy damage o.O

[Sabulum]

Why is the fact that rangers delay teching even an argument here? ASM delay teching and are hella expensive to reinforce, same with warriors to some degree, yet you'd be hard pressed finding people to say that they need to be buffed.

They're too expensive to reinforce, but thats it. They do good damage, their instant-suppression is great, and they get an ability that grants them infiltrate and a AoE infiltrate.

People don't use them because they're micro-intensive due to their weakness, not out of any severely underpowered status. Lower the reinforce cost somewhat to make them more player friendly, but lowering their initial costs is going to severely unbalance them in later tiers.

[Pigletdude]

dude, they are NOT instant supression, an ork squad is not instantly supressed by one shot, it can take 2 sometimes oddly enough from my expierence, was this a fluke or Am i wrong?
If so, 2 shots take forever due to huge reloading time.

[Codex]

suppressive fire reduces reload time.

from dowcodex: Weapon Damage x 0.1
Suppression Damage x 5
Weapon Cooldown x 0.1
Weapon Reload x 0.25

so yeah. 2 shots don't take long at all.

[FooF]

@ Sabulum

The argument goes "ASM/Warriors can actually do something in T1 and T2 (even T3) against the threats that come out then and can be somewhat effective against vehicles, with help." Rangers are one-trick ponies that don't scale into T2 or T3 nearly as well, are paper-thin (which ASM and Warriors are not), and even in ideal circumstances, don't kill their own resource cost in any short amount of time. Granted, Rangers fill a vastly different role than ASM or Warriors but one Ranger squad does not have the same impact on the battlefield that a Warrior or ASM squad has in T1, T2, or T3. For cost, ASM/Warriors have a lot more impact on the battlefield than Rangers can ever hope to have outside of a few special situations (like a setting an ambush via AoE cloak or whatnot).

Stikks would almost be in the same category as Rangers if they didn't cost just 10 Power. If they cost 25 power like Rangers, no one would ever build them, despite being pretty effective. They don't scale into T2 or T3 real well, though they can still be useful.

Yes, Rangers need more micro, which some people are loath to commit to, but picking off a single Warrior at range generally is not going to be as effective as jumping in on the Warriors and cutting them all down or providing synapse, a heavy weapon, and a lot of durability to your army. Rangers just don't have the same battlefield presence and no one is going to fear a single Ranger squad when you can force it to retreat with virtually any unit on the field. They're also hard-countered by any kind of vehicle.

Now, if you had multiple Ranger squads? Sure. But that's 50 power, minimum, most likely in T2 when Eldar are trying to equip wargear, grab WS, get a Wraithlord or Falcon, etc. Against Orks and Nids, Rangers could be effective since vehicles generally don't come out til T3. Against other Eldar or SM, you know a vehicle is coming so a Ranger squad is not going to be of much use.

Dropping the reinforcement price would be incredibly nice. I'm not going to disagree. If they were 40/4 instead of 60/4, I don't think Rangers would need any other change but they'd be unique in having a discounted reinforce cost. I'm not saying that's bad but it would be a setting a precedent.

I'm still an advocate of a 360/15 initial price with the gear upgrade going up to 20 Power from 10. It's the same overall cost as before (and let's face it, if your rangers can't cloak, they're hosed) so massing them is still going to be as difficult as before, unless you want your paper thin, massed Rangers to be ripped apart. I could almost see a 360/10 price with a 25 Power upgrade. Again, you could mass them easily enough but they're going to get hard-countered in T2 by any vehicle and it will cost 25 Power each to allow them to cloak. They also don't harass power.

[Codex]

tbh, i'm using steiner's double SP ranger build, and the role that rangers fill in that is mobile suppression. it buys time for the SP to power raze, which together pay for themselves as it costs 425 req to replace a full power farm. not to mention power not gained during that time.

basically, get a SP down there, and when they try to flank, alternate between units to suppress 2 units at the same time. they also can buy time for units to run away. works great vs apoths- 1 ASM jumps in on your plat? quick suppress and the whole army presses x. you can get away with no casualties if you're lucky and it negates any advantage of melee vs retreat, since they can't chase.

[MasterBlaster]

after much much testing over the last few days.

I will concdede rangers do need a slighlt HP buff around 75 for the entire squad.
25 per member.

But that they will need to be watched closely and maybe need something else nerfed if they end up to effective later tiers.

[Codex]

a 25 hp buff is in no way going to make them too effective in later tiers. sniper scouts will still have more hp than rangers do.

[FooF]

How does double SP+Ranger work against 2x Shotty Scouts + Tacs? I understand Rangers can detect but the Ranger squad isn't going to be everywhere and any smart player would go after the Rangers a.) to cause casualties that cost an arm and a leg to replace and b.) force a retreat so the Shotty Scouts can infiltrate beside the plats.

Also, wouldn't the smart ASM player jump on the Rangers? I mean, you could always say "the Rangers are set up in a Plat's field of fire" but that's not always going to be the case. Plats aren't as mobile as ASM.

I'm not doubting the viability of the strategy (I can see it working to great effect, tbh), it's just my SM mind is going "I'd never fall for that..."

Finally, what's in T2? If I saw double Plats+Rangers I'd probably go 2x ASM. Razorback is going to get toasted by the inevitable WS/WL/Falcon and 2x ASM don't cost that much power and can deal with a WL with Stim+2x Melta. They also can deal with WS pretty well.

[MasterBlaster]

rangers can supress a asm squad outside its jumping range they just need vision.

[Codex]

@ FooF

double SP rangers would find double shotty tacs a bit of a pain, yes, but very few players ever go for double scouts except in team games. after all, double shotgun seems to only be more effective than any other start against double SP. the point is this build is designed to punish pretty much everything that SM starts with except double shotgun. especially tac builds. oh that'll hurt tac builds.

you don't keep your rangers that close to your SP. your rangers should be off to the side or quite a bit back. the SPs cover each other, leave the rest to the rangers. and as masterblaster said, ranger range>their sight range> their jump range.

finally, depending on what you think your opponent is bringing, either double WS or WS+BL. WS+BL is more the AV counter and well double WS will tear apart any infantry. this is a rather micro heavy build though, so i don't blame people for not using it. usually i'm dodging ASM left right and centre... although the ASM do drop rather fast with apoth support.

anyway, Steiner has replays of this working vs SM... but if i get a really good one i'll post it here. i've got it working really well against a TS~30 ork... so that's good :)

[FooF]

I might give the strat a try since I've been infatuated with Eldar as of late. I think it would work independent of what Commander you choose, though Commander choice would definitely affect the overall game.

[BudgetMessiah]

Rangers shouldn't be able to disable vehicles. What else could you use to break through suppression platforms + rangers then? ASMs get suppressed before the jump and/or immediately after, so plats can more-or-less walk away. The rest of the brothers are slow when hoofing it, so pile into a razorback to get inside the eldar defenses and...pinned at range anyway? At least warp spiders are an extra expense on top of this setup, making it pretty unlikely.

Rangers should be rebalanced in some way so that they are more survivable, I think this would benefit them the most. Maybe make it so their suppression attack was their primary shot, their damaging shot was a clickable mana-costing ability with a cooldown, and they could retain their fleet-of-foot and eventual pathfinder upgrades, while not being made of paper?

[Codex]

@ FooF
heh you might have to be careful with that build. spydR just used an experimental ork build he's been crafting to completely rape this. there's only one warning sign and by then it's all but too late...

but, commander-wise:
Farseer- guide+ mind war= lots of suppression. look to get seer council out
Warlock- disruption= win
WSE= group tele to power nodes for very fast power razing

[D-coy]

Guys try to keep posts on-topic please. ;)

Can we all agree that a 10 power decrease on the initial cost and 10 power increase on the upgrade will suffice? Or is that too much, or too little?

[Codex]

i'm not going to dig up the quote, but as troubleshooter said, balance discussions require strategy to accompany it- there's no use trying to balance rangers like scouts because they fulfil different purposes. we're talking about what rangers are good for and hence what they should be balanced around.

[D-coy]

I see now, than continue as you see fit.

[Ceorl]

My two cents on this whole comparison issue that keeps getting brought up on the thread is that Rangers and Scouts are the only two units in the game who fufill the sniper function and if a Eldar player attempts to field Rangers it is very likely that a SM player will respond by fielding Sniper Scouts, a counter tactic which often wins because Scouts are more effective for cost. So a direct comparison is legitimate because the two units do face off against each other in a very distinctive fight in term of game mechanics.

Now I thought it worth pointing out in this thread that, as we know, the 1.4 patch is going to make teching to tier 2 much more difficult. (Theorycrafting that Relic decides to leave the Scout Sniper Rifle a tier two weapon) Suddenly the Ranger squad becomes the only sniper unit for a significant portion of the game. That may very well change opinions about the unit for a number of reasons (power cost is relatively less important to teching, veh counters are harder to get, etc.)

[Codex]

really? wouldn't it be far better to just invest in some ASM which can actually kill the rangers REALLY fast?

anyway, we're going to see different rangers soon. fingers crossed.

[FooF]

While pertaining to the OP and improving Rangers, I don't want to discuss too much about Ranger changes in 1.4.

What is known is that their price was reduced, though they're still Tier 1.5 units (as in, in T1 but cost power).

Now, since the game will have a much longer T1, Rangers were indirectly buffed by that fact alone. I've been talking a lot about how the cost of Rangers basically delayed teching into T2 too much and that the price of them could be spent better elsewhere to combat the inevitable vehicle. In 1.4, that all changes. T1 is far longer and a much bigger up front cost, therefore, a Sniper unit in T1 is far, far more valuable. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Scout Snipers will not exist in T1, so Rangers will be the only true Sniper in T1. We have no idea if Rangers can cloak in T1, but I wouldn't doubt it because it looks like detectors have moved into T1, as well.

That all being said, the role of a long-range killer in a infantry-dominated section of the game is going to be very effective. The T2 change by itself would have made Rangers useful.

Anyway, like I said, I don't want this to devolve into a 1.4 thread since all we have are a few tiny pieces of info and a lot of speculation.

[MasterBlaster]

Yay looks like eldar overpowered.

Rangers didnt need a price reduction but lets ignore that and focus on mass guardin grenades

Longer t1
Mass guardins grenades with ranger suspress
Instant win vs all ranged armies and jumptoops

They either withdraw or die immedately after being suspressed.

Foof rangers already detect stealth tier1? whats with this moving detectrors to tier1?