You mean like adding ooh i dono ... say: Ard Armor (20 A + 20 T) + Shootah's Golden Gob (+20 H+ 20 A + 20 T) ( total + 20 H + 40 A + 40 T) A MoN Traitor has 220 Hp 150 armor 150 Toughness. Equipped with MoN, Totem of Treachery and Warp Touched Armor A Shoota Boy with just 2 items ( armor and wargear slot) instead of 3 has : 245 Hp, 140 Armor, 140 Toughness . Also the basic shooty boss pole is copy/paste from the nurgle Icon. Orks are pretty much MoN without the drawbacks in stam regen if you ask me. Infact if you could then equip sad ork with 30% stam regen wargear he will have essentially 90% more stamina regen compared to a MoN Traitor. altho i'm pretty sure + 30% Stam regen won't fit Lp cost wise, 15% might th0. Your only advantage here as MoN is slightly less time to regen armor because of the small bonus on warp or demon forged armor and MoN's build in Ailment resistance to poisons ..
I personally find the Bolter to be a much better standard infantry rifles vs the Dire Avenger's "submachine gun" so I personally would say yes. Bolter with a scope functions well at longer ranges and I use pen mod and don't miss the extra reload time on box/drum. I reload frequently, a holdover from FPS, and don't find that behavior to be at all misplaced in Eternal Crusade. Anytime I need more than 30 bullets to clear a hallway (4 or more targets) a heavy Bolter would be better suited to the job and I would be foolish to try and do that on my own, instead working together with a squad to hose down the hallway and clear out all the targets. I use whichever grip it is that reduces moving spread. I do just fine as Loyalist, Slaaneshi or Nurgle. The only times I've seen DAs being effective and having high killing potential while not dying frequently is working together with the guild (MYST), bringing multiple dire avengers, one warlock with enhance and another warlock with jinx. With all that support, targets even at the outer edge of fall off and accuracy just melt to the few shurikens that manage to ping off of them. Bolters would still probably be better in this situation but the fact that Bolters can engage effectively without support at range (by virtue of accuracy, lower rate of fire and lower damage drop off) and stay outside of suicidal close quarters while still being respectable in close quarters while a DA sacrifices much of their mid-long range solo effectiveness for more power at suicidal ranges does not seem a fair trade to me. Even in cramped close quarters of supremacy maps like Pegasus to say nothing of defending DAs on Agnathio vs defending tacs on Agnathio. The discrepancy doesn't really make sense to me from a TT standpoint either. The ASC only has 6" less max range than a boltgun. The ASC fires as many shots as a rapidfiring boltgun, but all the time, even while/after moving and at maximum range. The boltgun is thereby less effective in the middle range band past the boltguns rapid fire range, where DAs would outpace them and would seek to keep their enemies, firing fewer bullets at them. The boltgun matches the ASC at short range. The adaptability of the boltgun exists, rapid firing at close range and taking measured shots out to a further range than ASCs can reliably hit the target, but current in video game mechanics paint the ASC as horribly inferior in the middle range band where it should excel vs the Bolter and somehow superior at close range? Where the two weapons are equal on TT?
TT is a set of rules lose from the lore. just like how this videogame is a set of rules lose from the lore. the lore is not something to base game ballance off. because it is it self biased to who ever it's betraying. by lore both eldar weapons and bolters would insta kill each others users. none of this is in the table top noir is this a thing in this video game. instead both TT and this game have found a place a middle ground of where these weapons should be at with in their own set of mechanic's This is why things are different in this video game from TT and the lore and visa versa. Table Top ,This Video Game, the lore.. they are not mutually interchangeable concepts because the lore is self biased and games between 2 people on TT play a lot differently than between 60 ppl online so its obvious why there must be differences in interpretation of the lore in both situations if one wants to maintain a level of fairness and balance. because i say again , the lore itself is not balanced and self biased.
A good example is the story about UltraSmurff against a Tyranid (supposed infinite) Tendril. They found a way to make their UltraSmurff win,... against a infinite flowing wave of Tyranids.
Always been a Tactical,Avenger&Shoota player. Already maxxed out both Eldar and Chaos, also LSM I agree that the slaaneshi tactical is over powering the Avenger in mobility. And also having a higher base health and armor. Also faster 33% over the 25% The so called smaller hitbox is very negligible. If that were an issue they should increase said hitbox rather than nerf HP/Armor. The February HP/Armor nerf is where it mostly started being a problem.
You are wrong. Both have 33% run speed bonus and 15% sprint bonus. About hitbox you said totaly wrong too. Eldar was nerfed because hitbox+speed is too much.
Short answer: No Long answer: Bigger hitboxes, still turns slower than a DA, has super bad armor regen.
Cool. Thanks for the heads up.. won't be buying that Gob for a while then. I wasn't sure hence doing 2 separate set of stats. Post been edited for correctness.
You seem to have missed the fact that I said wargear option. . . It is in that quotation of mine that you quoted. Not the whole kit, as you seem to think I have wrote. I also wrote that if shootas had access to MoN, they would be extremely strong. I will give you that your two builds there are close in LP costs, the ork being 600 and the CSM being 610, but I also did not say anything about base stats, other than that orks get a lower headshot multiplier, which still has nothing to do with wargear. We all know that orks are meaty little bastards and get an extra 25 HP. I did not make a comparison between ork loadouts and CSM loadouts and I know that my Ork is more tough than my CSM. The exact eff. health difference for MY loadouts (which you can see in the sheet, they change periodically and the sheet I do not change with them, but they are mostly the same I believe) is about 2 HP in advantage of the CSM, not taking into account headshots, which puts the ork pretty much miles ahead of the CSM, not the mention that the ork also has a sticky stick bundle, while the CSM has a frag. If you look at armor and gear alone, no base stats taken in consideration, your CSM is getting 20 HP, 50 Armor, and 55 Toughness for 610 LP. Your Ork is getting 20 HP, 40 Armor, and 40 toughness, as you mentioned, for 600 LP. So for 10 LP, you get 15 toughness and 10 armor, which is a pretty damn good bargain, seeing how 20 toughness is worth 100 LP. Granted you are paying for rolling less frequently in rapid succession, which I wrote does not matter to me for ranged classes. Not that I would ever put ToT on a non-vet build, but it was your comparison. The only thing I pointed out with quoted statement is that MoN is an extremely cost effective wargear if you do not care about repetitive rolling (which if you are ranged, you probably don't). Apparently reading comprehension is difficult Mr. Over-Thinking Cap. I will state again, that if I could put MoN on my shoota boy, I would. Right now I use rusty gob + gold armor. If you care about my calculations (which after my little quip there I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't) it can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I7BhwKOdeNiAKz8DQybJkrtzTbj1BUNxz71Y19UYajA/edit?usp=sharing My toughness to effective health calculations could use some cleanup to be more accessible to others not myself (thought about just making it a simple chart with toughness values on one axis and hp the other, rather than possible loadouts), but it is what it is for now.
