40K Online
EldarOnline => Eldar => Topic started by: Lord of Winter and War on October 8, 2017, 01:36:08 PM
-
Timeline Photos (https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1906734289647201/?type=3&source=48)
So, time to expect elder chapter traits and strategems.
Topic title changed, as the spelling was bothering me :P - Iris.
-
I half suspected that they would be next but I am very glad to hear this!
Though I doubt there'll be any Corsair love in the immediate future :(
-
I half suspected that they would be next but I am very glad to hear this!
Though I doubt there'll be any Corsair love in the immediate future :(
Forge world does their own thing, unfortunately. A lot of their rules and points right now are pretty broken.
Most events I've been going to are banning forge world, as it's really unbalanced.
-
I half suspected that they would be next but I am very glad to hear this!
Though I doubt there'll be any Corsair love in the immediate future :(
Forge world does their own thing, unfortunately. A lot of their rules and points right now are pretty broken.
Most events I've been going to are banning forge world, as it's really unbalanced.
Yeah to be honest a lot of their rules from the indexes seem like they've been thrown together pretty quickly. There are some options available that seem utterly ridiculous and then some that genuinely have me scratching my head at. I doubt I'll get a huge amount of use out of my Lynx until they update it.
-
I'm really excited. The current 8th edition rules put Eldar in a certain place, which isn't bad, but I'll be much happier once a few things get ironed out.
I wonder how decisions like Craftworlds / Ynnari will be worked out. Right now Strength from Death is a bit wonky. Plus, with so many special rules that are army or detachment specific, spread out over different publications, it's harder to trust your opponent gets them right.
I happen to be getting back in 40k, and I'm going to be using Eldar to find myself again. It's always good to get back in right before a new codex drops.
-
Yeah to be honest a lot of their rules from the indexes seem like they've been thrown together pretty quickly. There are some options available that seem utterly ridiculous and then some that genuinely have me scratching my head at. I doubt I'll get a huge amount of use out of my Lynx until they update it.
It is a shame, as the models are fantastic.
I'm really excited. The current 8th edition rules put Eldar in a certain place, which isn't bad, but I'll be much happier once a few things get ironed out.
I wonder how decisions like Craftworlds / Ynnari will be worked out. Right now Strength from Death is a bit wonky. Plus, with so many special rules that are army or detachment specific, spread out over different publications, it's harder to trust your opponent gets them right.
I happen to be getting back in 40k, and I'm going to be using Eldar to find myself again. It's always good to get back in right before a new codex drops.
Strength from death is really powerful, that's for sure. But, at least now you'll have to weigh in loose craftworld traits, warlord traits, extra psychic powers, relics and stratagems over taking Ynnari.
I am really hoping when the Ynnari book comes out, they make it a unique faction, instead of just borrowing from everyone else lol. It's been 100+ years since the gathering storm, I'm sure that's enough time to give them their own identity.
-
Yeah to be honest a lot of their rules from the indexes seem like they've been thrown together pretty quickly.
Whaaaaat? Weren't they crafted from the finest minds 40K had to offer? Tired and true tourney operators who have loved this game like a third or fourth child? People who were experts as to how each army operated as they had been there in the trenches like us and knew just how things were supposed to happen? I'm aghast and dismayed.
-
New updates. Sounds super exciting.
Coming Soon: A new codex for the craftworlds – Warhammer Community (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/15/coming-soon-a-new-codex-for-the-craftworlds/)
-
Some of that sounds interesting, but I'm wary of the whole bring back the Craftworlds agenda. I think that the most exciting part of the release is the fact that they're going to bring back some of the Rogue Trader Eldar models for a week. That is something that I am definitely going to take a look at.
-
I'm annoyed as I just tracked down a classic Farseer (pointing with sheathed sword on his back). Was quite happy even with all the paint glomped on it, now I could have had a brand new one! First world problems...
Will definitely be picking up a couple of the antlered warlocks with spears for a bit more variety amongst the Warlock Conclave.
-
I'm super excited! Always feels good to get some codex love. Also, those white and blue dice? Amazing.
-
Some of that sounds interesting, but I'm wary of the whole bring back the Craftworlds agenda.
How is that a bad thing? People have been wanting craftworld rules back since the 3rd edition codex was retired.
Looks like the book is following the trend of no new models, just new rules. I imagine that the rest of the 'established' factions will be the same (at least until all the books are out).
I'm still hoping that they eventually expand Ynnari into it's own faction, instead of just borrowing units from everyone else. Has a lot of potential to be really interesting.
-
I hope there is a lot more to come, because the psytronome is not that reassuring.
Eldar seems to have become more suicidal than orks.
Regarding the dice, they might look good on the shelf, but are quite unpractical due to being harder to read.
The re-relesae of models is nice, however it might just be a cover up, for not making new stuff, especially with the wraithguards being the poster boys for eldar... again.
I thought the nids would get their dex first, but maybe there might be a campaign box with nids & eldar by x-mas.
-
Orks aren't usually suicidal. They're more tactically enthusiastic. Wait and see what this week's reviews provide. Should have five days of low level spoilers just like the other codex releases.
-
How is that a bad thing? People have been wanting craftworld rules back since the 3rd edition codex was retired.
Some people have been asking for this, others, including myself, have not. The reason being is that the balance, both internal and external in the third edition 'book' was poor to put it mildly, and the last thing that I want to see is anything that is as abusable as the Ranger disruption table used to be.
-
I will say that relative to fixes for points costs for certain units like Dire Avengers and Support Batteries (both of which are unplayable now due to very high points costs) I don't have a high priority for things like craftworld rules. If Eldar Craftworlds just get the same kind of stuff that Space Marine Chapters or Admech Forge Worlds or IG Regiments get-- a couple custom strategems, and some basic army-wide rules, etc-- I'd be ok with this, as long as we have a wide variety of playable units. As-is, it feels like Dire Avengers just don't perform well enough or are significantly over priced, and it's also tough to justify Support Batteries and a couple other choices. Beyond that, a few other units feel situational, and some units are worse than others while costing more (Fire Prism performs less well against every all enemies in every profile than Night Spinner does, while costing more).
-
well, so far we know nothing about the new stratagems, special craftworld rules or relics other than the (rather mediocre) craftworld Iyanden relic. While that relic makes me sad (I have such pretty yellow and blue models, I'm not gonna put d3 mortal wounds on them! I did expect this coming out.
I mean, they have marine chapter tactics, forgeworld dogmas, and whatever the guard equivalent was already. The only codeci they haven't used this one are death guard and grey knights - which is likely because they are already specialised as it is.
I fully expect the tyranids to get hive fleet evolutionary digressions, and so on. I think it would be nice from a fluff perspective, but of course, people will still be going "oh, but this other rule is much more advantageous... these red-painted guys with teardrops and wings everywhere are actually raven guard!"
So yea, while I like the idea behind it (as I love more fluffy additions to any army), it will of course just be used for rule advantages as ever.
Edit:
Now the Iyanden focus (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/16/craftworld-focus-iyanden-oct-16gw-homepage-post-3/) is up. I'm not sure what to think of it, though I'm happy my wraithguard and lord will toughen up a bit, and certainly happy the spiritseer has become more viable.
I'm just not too sure of the value of the iyanden attribute. But well, we'll make do.
-
The Iyanden attribute looks great. Imagine it not just for the mentioned Wraithknight example, but for Wraithlords in combination with a now buffed toughness of 8. They will be valid selections for a wraith army again.
-
I agree Bego. Looking super solid, especially with that -1 to wound roll. All of a sudden those dudes are looking super tough. Love that Wraithblade + Empower + Psytronome is INSANE. Thats a phenomenal was to butcher screens and get at the juicy targets.
I'd be sorely tempted to try this out with the Ghost Wing of my army.
-
A foot list using multiple squads of guaridans back up by wraith units is now quite a bit more appealing.
I'm very happy Lords got T8 back, however the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons still makes them unappealing.
-
A foot list using multiple squads of guaridans back up by wraith units is now quite a bit more appealing.
I'm very happy Lords got T8 back, however the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons still makes them unappealing.
Wraithlords and Wraithguard, assuming there haven't been other things fiddling with their rules, now seem quite strong. Anti-Infantry Weapons that worked reasonably well against Wraithguard like Heavy Bolters no longer do so. Assault Cannons are less effective as well. Mid-range or flexible anti-tank like missiles and autocannons are now worse against Wraithlords, as are bolters and meltaguns and plasma guns.
Stoic Endurance is a major buff to Wraithlords, who will be fighting at full strength all the way down until they have only 2 wounds remaining.
I think the idea of an army of footdar supported by wraith units has been buffed, which is exciting!
-
Empower is great for banshees. ;) or even for shining spears.
The new cost of spiritseers and warlocks is really interesting, warlocks must have gotten a serious boost if they are even more expensive than now, otherwise there would be no point of using warlocks over spiritseers even without wraith units in the army.
-
Empower is great for banshees. ;) or even for shining spears.
The new cost of spiritseers and warlocks is really interesting, warlocks must have gotten a serious boost if they are even more expensive than now, otherwise there would be no point of using warlocks over spiritseers even without wraith units in the army.
Depends on what they meant by "10 more than a Warlock" because if you factor in wargear, the 45-point Spiritseer is in fact about 10 points more than a Warlock with a Witchblade. Maybe Warlock base cost went up though, if so it might correspond to a buff to the Destructor or something.
-
Regarding Wraithblades and rerolls, surely someone has to go... hmm no thats a stupid number of dice rolls for a single unit to be making...
-
My impression re: the toughness buffs is that the Wraithlord quite needed this, but the Wraithguard did not need this at all, as they were already one of the best units.
-
@Blazinghand: well I'm assuming warlocks will cost 45-10 = 35 points, which is more than they currently cost, however if their witchblades come included it's still not enough. Even if they let go of the warlock smite-nerf I'd still prefer the statline of the spiritseer for +10 points.
Possibly if the spiritseer has to buy the witchstaff for 15 points the spiritseer & warlock would be at balance. I find it unlikely that one of them has to buy their basic gear and the other not, but I think we will see tomorrow, Ulthwé will likely feature Eldrad, warlock conclaves and black guardians.
-
My impression re: the toughness buffs is that the Wraithlord quite needed this, but the Wraithguard did not need this at all, as they were already one of the best units.
Well they did because of the SvT table, both Marines and conscripts could wound them on the same roll so yeah, the wraith wall would just collapse against a horde.
-
@Blazinghand: well I'm assuming warlocks will cost 45-10 = 35 points, which is more than they currently cost, however if their witchblades come included it's still not enough. Even if they let go of the warlock smite-nerf I'd still prefer the statline of the spiritseer for +10 points.
Possibly if the spiritseer has to buy the witchstaff for 15 points the spiritseer & warlock would be at balance. I find it unlikely that one of them has to buy their basic gear and the other not, but I think we will see tomorrow, Ulthwé will likely feature Eldrad, warlock conclaves and black guardians.
Spiritseer does not have to buy and pay for Witch Staff right now, and Warlock has to pay for Witchblade right now (in Index:Xenos 1). It can't be THAT unlikely that one has to buy basic gear and the other does not, given that it is ALREADY the case, heh.
My impression re: the toughness buffs is that the Wraithlord quite needed this, but the Wraithguard did not need this at all, as they were already one of the best units.
Well they did because of the SvT table, both Marines and conscripts could wound them on the same roll so yeah, the wraith wall would just collapse against a horde.
Hmm, this is possibly because I do not play against very hordey armies that I have not noticed this problem.
-
Regarding Wraithblades and rerolls, surely someone has to go... hmm no thats a stupid number of dice rolls for a single unit to be making...
Really? Have you never played against an Ork or Tyranid army?
Also keep in mind this is on a very expensive full 10-man squad who was mostly point-costed out of being used. They're also going to be on foot and assuming they made their charge. Surely a good opponent will kill at least a few as they walk up the board and probably deny them the charge (for a loss of attacks).
Not that bad at all.
-
I just noticed, if you cast enervate on a unit that would normally only wound you on 6+, you would effectively be immune, right?
For example Wraithlord vs Mareens or Wraithblades vs Gardsmen.
-
Regarding Wraithblades and rerolls, surely someone has to go... hmm no thats a stupid number of dice rolls for a single unit to be making...
Really? Have you never played against an Ork or Tyranid army?
Also keep in mind this is on a very expensive full 10-man squad who was mostly point-costed out of being used. They're also going to be on foot and assuming they made their charge. Surely a good opponent will kill at least a few as they walk up the board and probably deny them the charge (for a loss of attacks).
Not that bad at all.
In addition to Eldar, I also run an army of Orkz. A typical unit I might run would be:
30 Ork Boyz - 1 is Boss Nob with Big Choppa + Shoota, 3 have Rokkit Launchas, 26 have Shootas - 225 pts
1 Weirdboy with Da Jump - 62
Assuming I send this squad in using a weirdboy, it will put out 27x2 Shoota Shots, 3 Rokkit shots, then charge and 50% of the time make it in to make 87 regular Ork Boy attacks and 4 Big Choppa attacks. This requires about 290 points to make this happen. However, since this is a mass of S4 attacks, it doesn't really compare to the Wraithblades that well.
You could also do this with a squad of 10 Nobs with Big Choppas, and 2 Weirdboys, one casting Warpath, which will put out 40 Big Choppa Attacks for about 375 points total.
The article suggests a Spiritseer using Psytronome Warlord power, Guided Wraithsight Strategem on the Wraithblades, and Empower Psyker Power with a 10-strong Wraithblade (with axes) unit to put out 60 attacks. Total cost is about 550, plus a one-shot Warlord Trait, plus a CP. It's definitely a lot more expensive.
I would be pretty hesitant to make a 500 pts investment like this. But it could work.
-
5-man squad would be 30 attacks (3Ax5x2)..The 60 attacks is for 10 models with axes and over 500pts for just the wraithblades. It's also at a lower WS due to the axe. Granted you'll get rerolls on them. Still way too many points for me.
I wasn't comparing the strength and AP as it was only the number of attacks in question.
Makes my 5-man Ghostswords squad a whole lot more kill though!
-
Only once per game relic, so better make sure the bonus attacks do the job! Nice little trick, I like it. The mortal wounds they receive in return is a very fair trade off.
Curious to see what the other craftworlds get. I really enjoy the 'sub faction traits' the codexes are getting. Good flavour, but not too crazy.
-
I'm cautiously optimistic about this. I really love the models for the wraith units, and I'm hoping that the combat wraith units especially will be far more worthwhile now.
-
5-man squad would be 30 attacks (3Ax5x2)..The 60 attacks is for 10 models with axes and over 500pts for just the wraithblades. It's also at a lower WS due to the axe. Granted you'll get rerolls on them. Still way too many points for me.
I wasn't comparing the strength and AP as it was only the number of attacks in question.
Makes my 5-man Ghostswords squad a whole lot more kill though!
Dang, I totally miscalculated! Yeah, 10 Axe/Shield Wraithblades, plus a one-shot Warlord Trait, plus a CP, plus a psyker power and a psyker, all together is an enormous investment. I'm not sure it can really be compared to other options the Eldar have, heh.
-
In addition to Eldar, I also run an army of Orkz. A typical unit I might run would be:
Sorry was more of a comment on the silly number of dice rolls you get now, regardless of the army. Its gone from being played with a handle full of dice to a bucket. Guess that's why GW's dice esst have more than doubled in price lol.
-
I am more excited about the Enervate power. It applies a buff, irregardless of what that unit is attacking, and can stack with the Harlie's Shadowseer buff. This also means that something like a wraithlord vs Space marines can be immune to the normal attacks!
-
Just a reminder that while GW can posts all its own stats and copyright on its own site, we're not able to do the same. Some posts have been edited for that reason.
-
Ulthwe is next (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/17/craftworld-focus-ulthwe-oct-17gw-homepage-post-3/)
Got to be honest I am pretty disappointed with the Ulthwe rules, their craftworld trait is a poor mans disgustingly resilient and really won't make a huge deal of difference in my opinion. Obviously there may still be more to come but I was really hoping for a bit more of a psychic boost rather than a feel no pain save and a strategem to make Guardians a little better for 1 phase.
Mind War at least looks interesting with the right support.
-
Well, then you'll like that the new Eldar Starter Box is Iyanden, right? ;) Not like I need more wraiths. ;D
-
I must agree with Aurics pride, the Ulthwé stuff is disappointing.
To excessive dicerolling. the foresight of the damned could have been +1 on saving throws instead, and mind war could have skipped the roll off.
The stratagems are not bad, but they are only actually recycling psychic powers.
Allowing Autarchs to boost vehicles hit chances is great though, but the CP recycling is still excessive dice rolling, could just have given them +1CP. :( I wonder if multiple Autarchs allows you to roll multiple recycling dice though.
Edit: Autarchs boosted vehicles before too, (I thought it was only asuryani inf + bikes)
-
Ulthwe is pretty nice! An extra save is always a good thing to have, and if playing guardians, you'll get a lot of chances to roll some 6's.
For my custodian guard, my landraider and dreads get a 6+ bonus save, and it's been a game changer.
And, you'll always get use out of it, as you'll always need to take saves.
-
White the let down for me as well. Guess I'm keeping my black guardians on the shelf. Deepstriking guardians was fun while it lasted.
-
White the let down for me as well. Guess I'm keeping my black guardians on the shelf. Deepstriking guardians was fun while it lasted.
You know, it could be one of the strategems in the book that allows it.
-
I think the faction trait is actually reasonably solid. It might not seem as exciting as others, but having played against an Iron Hands Space Marines player who has a similar faction trait you actually see it working out pretty well. If it applies to all units (not just bikers and infantry, for example) this is actually pretty strong, saving you points on models that can take spirit stones, and giving the ability to some that can't take it even as an option (like War Walker or Wraithlord)
If there are a couple more ways to spend CPs on Black Guardians, or custom wargear choices for them, I think this would be pretty good. As-is, it doesn't feel that Black Guardians are that amazing, though the Discpline Stratagem seems nice.
-
I actually think that the things shown for Ulthwe are pretty solid. Are they exciting? No. But increasing survivability is huge. The ability to have a persistent way to negate 1/6 of all incoming wounds is useful. Combine it with stratagems at key times and it could make that 20 strong unit of Guardians into quite the movable rock...especially if the Runes of Fate/Battle are indeed expanded upon...you could end up having a 20 strong unit of guardians with 1 4++, with extra survivability provided through the psychic phase; any wounds that get through then have a chance of being wiped off. That could lead to a lot of gnashing of teeth very quickly.
I must agree with Aurics pride, the Ulthwé stuff is disappointing.
To excessive dicerolling. the foresight of the damned could have been +1 on saving throws instead, and mind war could have skipped the roll off.
You realise that the way that the Ulthwe trait works is actually better than what you're suggesting though, right? Not that you will save more models by doing the roll after the armour save, but because it doesn't specify only working on regular wounds. If it works on Mortal Wounds (which I think it does), that's far better...ask anyone that has played against Death Guard.
-
The main danger of a 20-Elf Guardian Squad is that Guardians actually have quite bad Leadership. Even running 10-Elf squads on foot, I find myself facing a lot of difficulty from morale tests. It's not too uncommon for my opponent to shoot 8 models down, and rely on morale to clean up the last couple (and the weapon platform). This problem only gets worse with 20-Elf squads because someone could plausibly shoot, say, 12 of the Guardians dead and rely on morale to reliably wipe out the rest.
I've been getting by with Embolden and the Inspiring Leader Warlord Trait, which boost Guardian Defender Ld high enough that on a 10-Elf squad it's rare for morale to be a problem. For a 20-Elf squad, though, we lack the mechanics that the Orkz have for their large squads to handle leadership, and we don't have Commissars like IG do. If you want to use large squads of Guardians, kinda paradoxically, Iyanden (which supposedly has limited elfpower available) is best suited for running a bunch of 20-Elf squads in terms of rules.
Of course, all this can be avoided by taking an Avatar.
-
@Looshkin & Blazinghand: yes the 6+++ is better than a bonus +1 to the save, but not for farseers or the Avatar of Khaine, which are two of units that you usually mostly want in an Ulthwé army.
I'm really starting to think someone in charge, got the craftworld traits mixed up with eachother.
-
Got to be honest I am pretty disappointed with the Ulthwe rules, their craftworld trait is a poor mans disgustingly resilient and really won't make a huge deal of difference in my opinion.
It blurrs the line between Ulthwe and DE troops lol.
Yeah all seems meh for them, mind war could be nasty if you pair it up with some leadership things, but stopping powers seems a little too easy, hopefully we'll see some buffs to our psykers to make it worth while.
-
I think Alaitoc are going to be lazy and just 100% copy Alpha Legion.
So they'll be camo cloaked at 12" or more, and you'll be able to spend 1 CP to infiltrate a unit.
Watch this space.
-
I hope we get some kind of change to Rangers. Somehow they just don't seem to be cutting it presently. That being said, if they had an additional -1 to hit for Alaitoc, this would make Alaitoc Rangers pretty sweet. Will we see the return of Pathfinders?
-
I hope we get some kind of change to Rangers. Somehow they just don't seem to be cutting it presently. That being said, if they had an additional -1 to hit for Alaitoc, this would make Alaitoc Rangers pretty sweet. Will we see the return of Pathfinders?
My 20-odd Rangers and Illic certainly hope they get a buff. That said, I think that they do an ok job at the moment. If they dropped a couple of points though, I'd be more than happy.
I think that we might see Pathfinders; they'll be a fairly vanilla upgrade if they do reappear - probably + a few points per model and you get mortal wounds on a 5 or 6. Something like that.
I think it's almost a certainty that Alaitoc get some version of the Alpha Legion/Raven Guard.
-
Biel Tan time! (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/18/craftworld-focus-biel-tangw-homepage-post-3/)
Another one that's a little underwhelming for me, will work very nicely when paired with Dire Avengers (which apparently have had a points drop) and Guardians but otherwise I can't see it being all that powerful.
I've also just caught sight of a leak of the remaining two and they are exactly as I had guessed what they were going to be. Alpha Legion.... Alaitoc is no surprise whatsoever but from a craftworld with so much character in the fluff it's really disappointing.
Got to be honest GW really isn't inspiring me recently, excluding the obvious massive power jump in the Guard Codex (And partially the Death Guard) all of the books just feel so lacking in character as they seem intent on basically copy and pasting bits into each book. I understand that the idea is to try and get some balance but at this rate I'd rather have 7th edition back, at least you had some fun formations etc.
-
I'll be disappointed if there really are no new models - it's a shame the special characters in particular aren't getting new kits, but they're also needed for the Shining Spears (who don't even have the new bikes) and the Vyper could do with an update incorporating both the 3rd Ed. Guardian style and elements from the 7th Ed. jetbikes. I still like the model, but it's a bit bulky by the standards of later Eldar vehicle models. With new production techniques I feel they could finally do something more inspired with the Wave Serpent as well, bringing it closer to its Epic 40k incarnation - that too looks a bit too squat.
Rules-wise Iyanden is the obvious standout, but then again Eldar fail morale tests by 2+ points relatively infrequently (unless enough of the unit's already been wiped out that it makes little difference) so it may be less reliable than it looks.
The Ulthwe rule may be stronger than it appears, as it mitigates the Eldar's major drawback and also means you never need to pay for spirit stones again.
The main Biel-Tan rule seems useful only if Dire Avengers in particular are good enough to be a central feature of the army - though the shuriken reroll can certainly be helpful with Guardians. The new stratagems seem to favour Guardian-based play and the force shield is a nice nod to the Dawn of War games.
Mind War works the way it always has but is welcome to have back, though I'm not sure I'd often spend a power slot on it when it's less versatile than Smite and only a little more reliable.
The Avatar boosts seem pretty good but you'd need to devote a lot of CPs to it. Glad I picked up a FW Avatar as it looks as though the main model isn't changing.
-
This look really depressing, good thing Avengers will get some well deserved points decrease.
+1LD is worthless on aspect warriors, especially if you bring Khaines Avatar.
Boost to shuriken weapons already exists from the PL's and the Autarch, less PL's and Autarchs for biel-tan is counterfluffy.
The stratagems are neat though very costly so you need an Autarch to recycle CP's, wait Autarchs other ability is useless when playing biel-tan :(
Feigned retreat is probably most useful for shining spears, while the court is for Banshees, you still need that Avatar close by to take full advantage of the court, combined with Jain Zar this would just be CC-overload, so noone would ever go near them.
The last stratagem is actually quite nice, if not for the small detail it only works in the fight phase, I have NEVER lost an Avatar in CC in my 20+ years of playing. Lascannons and missile launchers is what kills Avatars.
The only thing that could save biel-tan would be Avenger spam, with DAVU returning for mechanized lists.
-
Considering almost all units have shuirken weapons, I'll say beil-tan is pretty nice. Respawning the avatar is freaking amazing too. The avatar will be really hard to hit outside of melee, as he's a character, so it's nice to have.
If folks have their avatar being killed by heavy weapons, then something is wrong.
LD boost is not terrible. Nice to have, really nice for 5 man squads.
I'll be disappointed if there really are no new models
I don't know why you're suprised. No existing faction got new models. Just the new armies (death guard and primaries). I won't expect any existing factions to get any new models until all the codexes are all out.
-
I don't understand the argument "most Eldar units have shuriken weapons". It does matter when their shuirken pistols aren't the focus of the unit in the first place or the alternate weapon (reaper Exarch shuriken cannon) is far inferior to their base option.
If I'm running Biel-tan, the bonus it gives to Guardians and jetbikes is meaningless as I'm focusing an Avenger core with aspect support. Avengers and Spears get great use from it, but they were already being supported by an Autarch or PL anyway...
It's not that it's a bad bonus, it's just most of the aspects don't really get to benefit from a trait meant for an aspect heavy list.
The stratagems are really nice though.
-
You will have shuirken weapons, so you'll be getting a bonus. Pistols are still relevant, as you can shoot them while in combat.
I do wish it was re-roll 1s to wound though, that'd be nice to help trigger bladestorm.
My guess for sam-han is ignore -1 to hit for shooting heavy weapons on bikes, and re-roll charges.
Altioc will get the obligatory -1 to hit beyond 12".
-
Considering almost all units have shuirken weapons, I'll say beil-tan is pretty nice. Respawning the avatar is freaking amazing too. The avatar will be really hard to hit outside of melee, as he's a character, so it's nice to have.
If folks have their avatar being killed by heavy weapons, then something is wrong.
LD boost is not terrible. Nice to have, really nice for 5 man squads.
I'll be disappointed if there really are no new models
I don't know why you're suprised. No existing faction got new models. Just the new armies (death guard and primaries). I won't expect any existing factions to get any new models until all the codexes are all out.
The other armies all have at least some recent models except for the Imperial Guard. Most of the Eldar range dates to 3rd Edition, and the army has more resin infantry than any other. The Avatar, all of the special characters, the Warp Spiders and the basic vehicle frames for the Vyper, Spear jetbikes, and Falcon variants are all from 2nd Edition, while the Eldar got a significant redesign in 3rd that makes elements of these (including the crew and underslung shuriken catapults for the vehicles) look thoroughly out of place.
The failure to update the Spears when the jetbikes were redone is bizarre, especially as the Spear Exarch has a bright lance option that hasn't been supported in the Codex for years from what I can gather.
-
You will have shuirken weapons, so you'll be getting a bonus. Pistols are still relevant, as you can shoot them while in combat.
I do wish it was re-roll 1s to wound though, that'd be nice to help trigger bladestorm.
My guess for sam-han is ignore -1 to hit for shooting heavy weapons on bikes, and re-roll charges.
Altioc will get the obligatory -1 to hit beyond 12".
Correct for Alaitoc, and Saim Hann is correct although re-roll charges is just for Jetbike units. Assuming my source is correct.
-
The other armies all have at least some recent models except for the Imperial Guard. Most of the Eldar range dates to 3rd Edition, and the army has more resin infantry than any other. The Avatar, all of the special characters, the Warp Spiders and the basic vehicle frames for the Vyper, Spear jetbikes, and Falcon variants are all from 2nd Edition, while the Eldar got a significant redesign in 3rd that makes elements of these (including the crew and underslung shuriken catapults for the vehicles) look thoroughly out of place.
The failure to update the Spears when the jetbikes were redone is bizarre, especially as the Spear Exarch has a bright lance option that hasn't been supported in the Codex for years from what I can gather.
I don't disagree that the models are old. Chaos Space Marines have the same issue with some of their their models too, same with Astra Millitarium regiments. Doesn't change that the focus right now is getting all factions rules up to date. There will be more models eventually, GW is very keen to eradicate all pewter/finecast models. It's just not going to happen until the blitz to update all the armies books are done.
Also, I'm sure that the Jetbike Autarch has a laser-lance, not a bright lance.
-
You will have shuirken weapons, so you'll be getting a bonus. Pistols are still relevant, as you can shoot them while in combat.
I do wish it was re-roll 1s to wound though, that'd be nice to help trigger bladestorm.
My guess for sam-han is ignore -1 to hit for shooting heavy weapons on bikes, and re-roll charges.
Altioc will get the obligatory -1 to hit beyond 12".
Sure, but my Scorps or Banshees success was never contingent on their pistols shots in my experience this edition. I would have preferred wound rerolls as well.
Don't misunderstand though, I will likely be running a Biel-tan list as my most used list. Likely to be running an Avatar, Avenger + guardians core, supplemented by some Scorpions and Shining Spears.
-
The other armies all have at least some recent models except for the Imperial Guard. Most of the Eldar range dates to 3rd Edition, and the army has more resin infantry than any other. The Avatar, all of the special characters, the Warp Spiders and the basic vehicle frames for the Vyper, Spear jetbikes, and Falcon variants are all from 2nd Edition, while the Eldar got a significant redesign in 3rd that makes elements of these (including the crew and underslung shuriken catapults for the vehicles) look thoroughly out of place.
The failure to update the Spears when the jetbikes were redone is bizarre, especially as the Spear Exarch has a bright lance option that hasn't been supported in the Codex for years from what I can gather.
I don't disagree that the models are old. Chaos Space Marines have the same issue with some of their their models too, same with Astra Millitarium regiments. Doesn't change that the focus right now is getting all factions rules up to date. There will be more models eventually, GW is very keen to eradicate all pewter/finecast models. It's just not going to happen until the blitz to update all the armies books are done.
Also, I'm sure that the Jetbike Autarch has a laser-lance, not a bright lance.
The Autarch may, but that's a more recent model. The Shining Spear Exarch - unless they removed the component when the change to resin took place - has two options: a sword and a bright lance. The bright lance looks different from the laser lances used by the rest of the squad (as well as simply looking like a bright lance).
In the past they've always preferred to release models alongside the Codex while that army was flavour of the month. We've just seen new models for Typhus (shame, as the old one was better) and basic Death Guard infantry which are direct replacements for figures that already existed - it's not clear why they couldn't have done the same with the Eldar. I don't think Chaos has a comparable issue - they have 3rd Ed. basic infantry plastic kits, but even then they've had recent figures for Kharn, Ahriman, Chaos Dreadnoughts and the Thousand Suns, and I don't think anything in the range still dates back to 2nd Ed. (Abaddon maybe?)
-
I hope we get some kind of change to Rangers. Somehow they just don't seem to be cutting it presently. That being said, if they had an additional -1 to hit for Alaitoc, this would make Alaitoc Rangers pretty sweet. Will we see the return of Pathfinders?
This is the eara of overwhelming firepower, rangers are, high points, low damage output, they are only really useful as meat shields for illic or picking of entry level characters such as cryptek. Maybe an alternate firemode/ammo type that removes sniper rule but causes extra autohits kind of like the old shuriken cannon sherieker ammo causing things to exploded and causing leadership shenanigans.
This look really depressing,
while the court is for Banshees, you still need that Avatar close by to take full advantage of the court, combined with Jain Zar this would just be CC-overload, so noone would ever go near them.
Yes it does.
Court of Khaine is meh, it is too expensive and does not really do enough for that cost, and frankly with Banshee's they probably already have the distance, expecially if they are with in 6.
I'll be disappointed if there really are no new models
I'm not expecting any new models, we got some new ones not too long ago, if anything it would be a new upgrade kit for spears since they are the new black for eldar.
Post Merge: October 18, 2017, 04:36:09 PM
In the future, please use the modify button. Double posting is against the forum rules, and for that reason, the system merged your posts.
The Autarch may, but that's a more recent model. The Shining Spear Exarch - unless they removed the component when the change to resin took place - has two options: a sword and a bright lance. The bright lance looks different from the laser lances used by the rest of the squad (as well as simply looking like a bright lance).
It is star lance.
In the past they've always preferred to release models alongside the Codex while that army was flavour of the month.
GW makes a lot of noise before the codex drops when they have a new model. They would be exceedingly quiet if they did have new kit for Eldar and proably wouldn't have bothered with the rogue trader stuff if they had something new.
-
Interesting news on the Biel-Tan front. I think the Biel-Tan trait counter-intuitively lends itself to using Psyker or Phoenix Lord HQs. Why? The Autarch's bonus isn't useful for shooting with Shuriken Weapons if you are Biel-Tan. Still, in an army that was, say, mostly Banshees and Fire Dragons and Shining Spears, which use assault or non-shuriken shooting, the Autarch will have plenty to do. So we could see some of that. Morale boost seems pretty meh, but it's coupled with a very strong ability so it's sensible. Better morale wouldn't be useful on small squads or units near the Avatar of course, but could be useful in a pinch. The real secret tech of course is that if you have a bunch of Aspect Warriors crouched in a Wave Serpent, the Serpent itself can reroll its Shuriken shots even if your Autarch is also inside.
Hearing Dire Avengers are getting a price reduction is very exciting to me! I am very happy about this. This was my #1 request for this Codex, because right now DAs do not seem playable (or at least I have not been able to use them) due to being more than 2x the price of Guardian Defenders. This alone makes me satisfied.
Feigned Retreat seems like a great Stratagem, the kind that you'll get a lot of use out of. It means as long as you have CP, your opponent can't be absolutely sure he'll tie up your stuff by charging it. Even the threat of this Stratagem will be valuable.
The Avatar Resurgent could be pretty good. Bringing back the Avatar might be worth the CP spent on this, though it is very pricy.
Court of the Young King re-rolling hits instead of wounds is a little sad but being able to charge more reliably is nice.
-
I had been expecting for Biel-Tan something along the lines of the army being able to charge after advancing and aspect warriors having a re-roll 1s for wound rolls with shooting attacks.
This would have captured both the aggressive nature of Biel-Tan as well the quality of their aspect warriors without any overlap with the Autarch, Avatar, or Phoenix Lords. But oh well.
I also thought Ulthwe would be +1 to Ulthwe psyker cast rolls and Shuriken weaponry re-rolling 1s to hit. And Iyanden having the 6+ FnP roll, but GW had other ideas :)
I would hope Saim-han ignores the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons and having +2" to Jetbike advance and charge rolls. And Alaitoc having a -1 to being hit at 12", but we will have to see.
-
I'll be disappointed if there really are no new models
I'm not expecting any new models, we got some new ones not too long ago, if anything it would be a new upgrade kit for spears since they are the new black for eldar.
If the new upgrade kit comes with the new bikes, all to the good. As it is I don't think the Spear upgrades are sold separately so you need to buy two sets to use them if you want the new bikes.
I'm not aware of any recent models for Eldar other than the updates to the bikes and Wraithguard, both of which were long overdue at the time, and models for a couple of new units which were necessitated by new rules for fliers and superheavies which saw every army get new models. That fits the 'no new models without new units' rule they seem to be following now - the Wraithguard got new weapon options and jetbikes got extra heavy weapons.
And even those were the first new models for the Eldar since the addition of the Night Spinner (5th Edition?), I believe.
It is star lance.
Ah, so they just renamed it despite the fact that it still looks like a bright lance. Star lance didn't exist in 3rd as I recall.
GW makes a lot of noise before the codex drops when they have a new model. They would be exceedingly quiet if they did have new kit for Eldar and proably wouldn't have bothered with the rogue trader stuff if they had something new.
How much fuss did they make about the new Plague Marine models before the models themselves were actually previewed? People obviously expected them thanks to the Death Guard being in the boxed set, but I don't recall seeing anything about them until they were actually ready for release.
EDIT: I don't know if this is any kind of hint, but the community page has a bunch of Eldar silhouettes on a 'Regimental Standard' and many of the Aspect Warriors look somewhat different from the present models:
The Dark Reaper looks like the RT incarnation, with tapering helmet, more prominent sensor vanes, and thicker leg guards, only with current-style sensor backpack.
The Warp Spider looks very slender, and notably with much slimmer legs than the current models.
The Hawk looks very much like an RT-era version, but the weapon doesn't look like either a current lasblaster (no second barrel and the tip is upside down) or an RT lasgun.
Minor differences to the Striking Scorpion (more slender) and Howling Banshee (taller).
This could all be artistic licence, especially as most of these Aspects bar the Reaper and Spider are shown in poses the current models don't allow, but all of the other silhouettes look as though they're based on the current models.
-
EDIT: I don't know if this is any kind of hint, but the community page has a bunch of Eldar silhouettes on a 'Regimental Standard' and many of the Aspect Warriors look somewhat different from the present models:
The Dark Reaper looks like the RT incarnation, with tapering helmet, more prominent sensor vanes, and thicker leg guards, only with current-style sensor backpack.
The Warp Spider looks very slender, and notably with much slimmer legs than the current models.
The Hawk looks very much like an RT-era version, but the weapon doesn't look like either a current lasblaster (no second barrel and the tip is upside down) or an RT lasgun.
Minor differences to the Striking Scorpion (more slender) and Howling Banshee (taller).
This could all be artistic licence, especially as most of these Aspects bar the Reaper and Spider are shown in poses the current models don't allow, but all of the other silhouettes look as though they're based on the current models.
It's just art, not the actual models. Don't get too excited. I wouldn't expect any new models until all the codex books are out. The only faction I'd expect to see new models for, is Ynnari.
-
EDIT: I don't know if this is any kind of hint, but the community page has a bunch of Eldar silhouettes on a 'Regimental Standard' and many of the Aspect Warriors look somewhat different from the present models:
The Dark Reaper looks like the RT incarnation, with tapering helmet, more prominent sensor vanes, and thicker leg guards, only with current-style sensor backpack.
The Warp Spider looks very slender, and notably with much slimmer legs than the current models.
The Hawk looks very much like an RT-era version, but the weapon doesn't look like either a current lasblaster (no second barrel and the tip is upside down) or an RT lasgun.
Minor differences to the Striking Scorpion (more slender) and Howling Banshee (taller).
This could all be artistic licence, especially as most of these Aspects bar the Reaper and Spider are shown in poses the current models don't allow, but all of the other silhouettes look as though they're based on the current models.
It's just art, not the actual models. Don't get too excited. I wouldn't expect any new models until all the codex books are out. The only faction I'd expect to see new models for, is Ynnari.
Just putting it out there. I can see them using artistic licence with the Warp Spider - the current models don't look at all Eldar following the 3rd Ed. redesign for the rest of the range - but the Reaper is striking. It's noticeably different from the current figures, whose terrible helmets look nothing like the one depicted, having that weirdly oblong shape instead of the conehead, and prominent tassles that are altogether missing from this one.
The Reapers have already been redesigned twice, unlike any other Aspect, given how badly the 3rd Ed. models were received, and while the later models were an improvement they still aren't as good stylistically as the RT ones - which however have the same over-bulky scale problem with both models and weapons as the Warp Spiders. New Reapers more faithful to the RT style but better-proportioned in keeping with the current Eldar style would certainly be welcome.
-
I'm really not understanding the ferocious gnashing of teeth that is going on with the previews of the Elder Codex.
Do the various Craftworld abilities look as powerful as the Guard Codex? No. But the Guard Codex should be seen as an outlier. Are the abilities in line with Space Marines, Ad Mech and to a lesser degree Death Guard? Yes, they are.
Are they fluffy? Yes. They add character to each craftworld.
Are they OP? No. That is a good thing people! You want opponents to want to play you. Not the bad old days of the last Codex or the Days of the Flying Circus.
Are they all Elder are getting? Who the beslubber knows!!! Seriously, GW are leaking what they want to leak. We haven't seen what the profiles of models looks like (Except for Wraith Guard and Wraith Lords, which both got better). We have no idea about the points cost for models (All we know is that Dire Avengers are cheaper).
So take a beslubbering breath people! You'll find out in just over a week whether the Craftworld rules are meh, or whether they interact beautifully with stratagems to craft a rewarding, exciting, balanced set of characterful armies.
So far, every single rule presented makes Craftworld Elder better and more viable. Get over the fact that you aren't going to be able to just turn up and win; the days of 7th are long gone.
/rantover.
-
I must concur that there seems to be a rather a lot of negativity being expressed towards the information released so far. I can see a number of the new rules being quite handy and I think that it would be wise to wait for further details before drawing so many negative conclusions. There seems to be too great an expectation that Eldar should receive unique traits. I see no reason why this has to be the case. It helps if there are similarities with traits awarded to other armies, especially in terms of not having to incorporate too many rules into the game.
Regarding new models, I've never understood the constant clamour for new Eldar models. Many of the old Rogue Trader and second edition models have stood the test of time very well, in my opinion. The most recent Jes Goodwin sculpts are also very good. The Jetbikes are dated, I agree, but otherwise I'm more than happy with what is available.
-
Welcome back scatter bike spam! Now cheaper and mobile.
Think I'd still prefer catapults for the bladestorm though.
-
Welcome back scatter bike spam! Now cheaper and mobile.
Think I'd still prefer catapults for the bladestorm though.
At least the days of scatter bike scam mixed with riptide wing are long gone lol.
-
Due to the new woundtable scatterbikes are not as hard as they were in 7th though. It's nice because there is a niche for both cannons and lasers on bike now, not sure what to do with catapults.
And I'm really looking forward to field my Vypers with heavy weapons again! I hope for a change/points reduction for starcannons. I love the models and have been playing them with double shurican cannons for a while. They were hardly worth their points, but offered a good mix of mobility and toughness. Depending on how much cheaper they will be they might be really worthwhile then.
-
Welcome back scatter bike spam! Now cheaper and mobile.
Think I'd still prefer catapults for the bladestorm though.
Biel-Tan is looking like the best way to run a "craftworld" list, but that may be because it made the best approach from the Index (Shuriken Cannons everywhere) better. But it's also a demi-army wide bonus that you can build for. Probably depends on Dire Avengers being worth it.
-
In all seriousness I think it's balanced. Windriders aren't troops anymore (with obsec coming back this matters) and have a weaker armor save now. I think the point reduction is good assuming it's not a lot cheaper. They did feel a bit over costed. I'll be happy to field vypers again if they're cheap enough.
I agree Biel-tan is pretty well rounded assuming you are following the "shuriken all the things" the 8th edition version of the rules went. What non-shuriken focus aspects lose from the faction trait is made up for with the new strategems. That extra charge distance for a scorpion bomb is really appealing.
At the same time I am liking the idea of a Saim-hann list using a mix of scatter and shuriken windriders units, Vypers, Shining Spears and some Guardians in wave Serpents. Although a similar list with a lot of shuriken cannons would work as Biel-tan too..Or Ulthwe for "free spirit stones" on all your multi-wound models...
-
In all seriousness, altioc will be seen a lot,if they get the -1 to hit. That's a huge deal.
-
I must concur that there seems to be a rather a lot of negativity being expressed towards the information released so far. I can see a number of the new rules being quite handy and I think that it would be wise to wait for further details before drawing so many negative conclusions. There seems to be too great an expectation that Eldar should receive unique traits. I see no reason why this has to be the case. It helps if there are similarities with traits awarded to other armies, especially in terms of not having to incorporate too many rules into the game.
I'm generally liking what I'm seeing, though we haven't yet seen what if anything has changed about units that needed more than a cost reduction to fix (such as the Fire Prism).
While it was inevitable I'd also have preferred not to have 'Craftworld traits' but instead had 'Warhost traits' that don't demand a specific paintscheme, and allow traits for unit types not associated with a particular Craftworld - while Iyanden can work for a generic Spirit Host, Swordwind for an Aspect Host, Saim-Hann for a Windrider Host and Ulthwe for a Warhost, there's nothing for vehicles, either generically or grav-tanks specifically.
Regarding new models, I've never understood the constant clamour for new Eldar models. Many of the old Rogue Trader and second edition models have stood the test of time very well, in my opinion. The most recent Jes Goodwin sculpts are also very good. The Jetbikes are dated, I agree, but otherwise I'm more than happy with what is available.
The big issue with the Eldar models is that the Eldar had a major aesthetic makeover in 3rd Edition - the surviving 2nd Ed. models are somewhat akin to having RT Carnifexes or Tyranid Warriors in a Tyranid list. They're somewhat recognisable as coming from the same basic place, but they're stylistically very different. This is especially jarring with the Avatar (which was in all honesty never a great model to begin with, as someone who's played since before it was released) and the Phoenix Lords, but vehicle styles have changed too.
Most of the more recent vehicles have taken elements from the Vyper and Falcon, so they still feel coherent with the rest of the range and were always good models in their own right, but they could still benefit from an update incorporating 'evolved' features. The grav-tanks could benefit from streamlining and incorporating elements from FW kits like the Scorpion, as the Fire Prism turret did when that model was updated - both they and the Vyper look rather squat in comparison with the rest of the range, and the Vyper has suffered further from the jetbike update as it looks pretty dated in comparison. That's on top of elements that are simply stylistically wrong these days - underslung shuriken catapults are the big offender, but the Guardian crew are also from an era before the 3rd Ed. Guardians revised the style for Eldar infantry.
There's also simply a general scale issue with all models from that era - infantry models were bulkier for all armies and weapons larger relative to the rest of the figure. This is glaring with the Warp Spiders, and the malproportioned weapons make otherwise good models like Eldrad look very dated.
Finally the Shining Spears simply haven't been updated in line with the rest of the range - the bright lance (now star lance) doesn't closely resemble the Autarch version and the jetbikes are the now-obsolete models.
Every one of these changes seems necessary, rather than just a subjective would-be-nice update to replace the weaker models in the range like the Dark Reapers.
-
Looks like shoot + scoot is back, and it can apply to anything! Very exciting. I'm glad they've fixed Fire Prism, as it had serious problems. Still haven't heard about Support Battery though, hopefully there's something in the works for that.
I must concur that there seems to be a rather a lot of negativity being expressed towards the information released so far. I can see a number of the new rules being quite handy and I think that it would be wise to wait for further details before drawing so many negative conclusions. There seems to be too great an expectation that Eldar should receive unique traits. I see no reason why this has to be the case. It helps if there are similarities with traits awarded to other armies, especially in terms of not having to incorporate too many rules into the game.
I'm generally liking what I'm seeing, though we haven't yet seen what if anything has changed about units that needed more than a cost reduction to fix (such as the Fire Prism).
While it was inevitable I'd also have preferred not to have 'Craftworld traits' but instead had 'Warhost traits' that don't demand a specific paintscheme, and allow traits for unit types not associated with a particular Craftworld - while Iyanden can work for a generic Spirit Host, Swordwind for an Aspect Host, Saim-Hann for a Windrider Host and Ulthwe for a Warhost, there's nothing for vehicles, either generically or grav-tanks specifically.
I am not sure, but I was under the impression that some of these Craftworld traits may apply to vehicles. The Ulthwe one in particular might be good for grav-tanks to keep them alive longer, or perhaps the Iyanden one (if it applies to things other than wraith units) for keeping them shooting more accurately. Until we see specifics on how these traits apply, (with the exception of certain traits we already know about like saim-hann which are biker only) I wouldn't get too down on it.
My army is painted in a custom color scheme and fluff wise is not one of the big 5. I don't think it will be a problem with my friends that I play with though, I'll pick a ruleset that fits best and they won't mind if my custom craftworld uses Iyanden rules even though it's not Iyanden. Whether this is called "warhost" or "craftworld" by the rules doesn't matter for my purposes.
-
The style question is highly subjective, but one area where I will disagree is regarding the supposed change heralded by third edition. All that did was to change the style of the Guardians and their associated weapons platforms and some constructs, such as Wraithlords and War Walkers. The third edition style Aspect Warriors were awful and almost all of them (Swooping Hawks being the exception) were reverted back to the original Rogue Trader style by Jes Goodwin for the fourth edition Eldar codex. Rogue Trader and second edition Eldar infantry do not look out of place at all as result. I use them all the time and apart from the newer models being slightly larger, the differences are negligible.
Going back to the craftworlds, I maintain that it's the narrative of the craftworld and the colour scheme that ought to be the key factor in determining choice. Those were the elements that persuaded me to opt for Alaitoc when I was young, long before any of the craftworlds had any different rules. The days of my playing any of the craftwolds are long since over for me, and I suspect that more players these days choose their army based on the bonuses the army receives, but it would be nice to think that some players still choose their craftworld for reasons which go beyond the rules.
Either way, at least it looks as though the craftworlds are not going to receive overpowered bonuses, which was my main concern, so I'm encouraged by the way things are looking on that front.
-
The style question is highly subjective, but one area where I will disagree is regarding the supposed change heralded by third edition. All that did was to change the style of the Guardians and their associated weapons platforms and some constructs, such as Wraithlords and War Walkers.
Most of the weapon designs changed significantly, particularly shuriken and lasweapons, and the Guardian plate armour style was applied to all infantry (and later to Wraiththings) - it's a much wider-ranging change than you describe, quite aside from changes in proportion.
The third edition style Aspect Warriors were awful and almost all of them (Swooping Hawks being the exception) were reverted back to the original Rogue Trader style by Jes Goodwin for the fourth edition Eldar codex.
Pretty sure only the Dark Reapers were changed - indeed if I'm remembering correctly not all the Aspects received 3rd Ed. models, instead there were Reapers, Banshees and Scorpions in 3rd Ed. and all the rest - along with new Reapers - were new to 4th Edition. To this day the Banshees and Scorpions still have the 3rd Ed. models (the latter of which aren't nearly as bad as GW's genius for painting models in a way that shows them to worst effect suggests, but could stand improvement - the oversized pistols being a big offender).
Rogue Trader and second edition Eldar infantry do not look out of place at all as result. I use them all the time and apart from the newer models being slightly larger, the differences are negligible.
You're not bothered that death spinners are larger than wraithcannon and make reaper launchers look like popguns? Or that Spiders as models are half as wide again as a Dark Reaper with purportedly equally thick armour?
Going back to the craftworlds, I maintain that it's the narrative of the craftworld and the colour scheme that ought to be the key factor in determining choice. Those were the elements that persuaded me to opt for Alaitoc when I was young, long before any of the craftworlds had any different rules. The days of my playing any of the craftwolds are long since over for me, and I suspect that more players these days choose their army based on the bonuses the army receives, but it would be nice to think that some players still choose their craftworld for reasons which go beyond the rules.
What of those of us who simply have custom Craftworlds, especially if they've developed a backstory that demands a focus on unit types - such as grav-tanks or fliers - that don't have an official Craftworld analogue? Eldar have never had very well-differentiated Craftworld backgrounds - even in the Craftworld sub-Codex they had only a page on each and their specialisations are based entirely around unit type rather than any kind of cultural distinction. As an old-time Epic fan I've always liked to think of my 40k army as representing part of a Host-level formation, specialised along similar lines - and frankly that's all the Craftworld buffs here do, other than demanding a colour scheme-based keyword. Plus it adds variety in practice if you can take a Guardian-based army to one game and use an appropriate bonus, and a Wind Rider host to another.
Sure, a grav-tank army will happily pretend to be Alaitoc because all its units can stay far enough from the enemy to get the bonus, but it's not very flavourful and something vehicle-specific would be more welcome.
-
More detailed thoughts, now that I have chewed on the saim-hann reveal a bit.
It looks like a pretty direct buff to a mobile army. Scatter Lasers or other heavies are now stronger on jetbikes and vypers, and the bonus to assault aspect warriors (whether transported or Shining Spears) getting stuck in more easily is very good. Assuming there is also a rebalance of Twin Shuriken Catapult price, there will now be a significant boost to run just about every jetbike unit in the Eldar arsenal: Vypers, Windriders with every loadout, and Shining Spear.
"Considerable" point reductions for jetbikes and Scatter Lasers are both correct, imo. Scatter Laser isn't actually better than Shuriken Cannon, just different, and sometimes it is worse (especially on jetbikes). I haven't taken a Scatter Laser even once since the start of 8e, and I run many potential platforms for them: Wraithlords, Falcon, Wave Serpent, Night Spinner, Jetbikes, Guardians with weapon platforms, etc. I have never felt it was the right choice. With a different points cost this may change.
Shoot+Scoot has returned! this is great. The fact that seemingly any unit can do it if you spend the CP also seems good. Obviously the ideal scenario is jetbikers jumping in and out of LoS, but I am guessing we will see other applications as well.
Looks like an exciting revelation overall.
My guess, like everyone else, is Alaitoc for the 12" -1 to hit rule, but I'll be eager to see if they will have options like Pathfinders.
-
While it was inevitable I'd also have preferred not to have 'Craftworld traits' but instead had 'Warhost traits' that don't demand a specific paintscheme, and allow traits for unit types not associated with a particular Craftworld - while Iyanden can work for a generic Spirit Host, Swordwind for an Aspect Host, Saim-Hann for a Windrider Host and Ulthwe for a Warhost, there's nothing for vehicles, either generically or grav-tanks specifically.
There is nothing forcing anyone into painting their models because they are fielding a specific craftworld rules set. It's not even a matter of etiquette for your opponent. You can paint the models how you see fit, as long as you make it clear which models are in which detachment that have which craftworld.
The third edition style Aspect Warriors were awful and almost all of them (Swooping Hawks being the exception) were reverted back to the original Rogue Trader style by Jes Goodwin for the fourth edition Eldar codex.
Pretty sure only the Dark Reapers were changed - indeed if I'm remembering correctly not all the Aspects received 3rd Ed. models, instead there were Reapers, Banshees and Scorpions in 3rd Ed. and all the rest - along with new Reapers - were new to 4th Edition. To this day the Banshees and Scorpions still have the 3rd Ed. models (the latter of which aren't nearly as bad as GW's genius for painting models in a way that shows them to worst effect suggests, but could stand improvement - the oversized pistols being a big offender).
You would be remembering incorrectly.
All of the Aspect Warriors, minus the Warp Spiders and maybe Shining Spears, had models to update their look from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. The Striking Scorpion models had buck-teeth and a large scorpion tail coming from the back of their helmets, Howling Banshees were made to look more fluid, Swooping Hawks went from the wings coming out to the sides to coming straight out from their back, Dire Avengers were made to use the new Guardian body with a pewter head, Fire Dragons were made to be bigger, and Dark Reapers were made into the awesome skull-helmeted models.
When the 4th edition codex was released, they redesigned the Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, Dire Avengers, Fire Dragons, and Dark Reapers to the models that they have today. The Swooping Hawks, Warp Spiders, and Shining Spears were not touched.
Sure, a grav-tank army will happily pretend to be Alaitoc because all its units can stay far enough from the enemy to get the bonus, but it's not very flavourful and something vehicle-specific would be more welcome.
You are focusing too much on the fact that they are "Craftworld" traits. If you are building your own craftworld and have them use their own special style of fighting that focuses around Falcons and want to use the Alaitoc rules to get the bonus, go ahead and do it. You can simply say that you are using that rule set because it most closely resembles some advanced holo-field technology that is specific to that one special craftworld.
The rules are there to add flavour to the armies. You can make the fluff what ever you want so that the rules make sense.
-
The third edition style Aspect Warriors were awful and almost all of them (Swooping Hawks being the exception) were reverted back to the original Rogue Trader style by Jes Goodwin for the fourth edition Eldar codex.
Pretty sure only the Dark Reapers were changed - indeed if I'm remembering correctly not all the Aspects received 3rd Ed. models, instead there were Reapers, Banshees and Scorpions in 3rd Ed. and all the rest - along with new Reapers - were new to 4th Edition. To this day the Banshees and Scorpions still have the 3rd Ed. models (the latter of which aren't nearly as bad as GW's genius for painting models in a way that shows them to worst effect suggests, but could stand improvement - the oversized pistols being a big offender).
You would be remembering incorrectly.
All of the Aspect Warriors, minus the Warp Spiders and maybe Shining Spears, had models to update their look from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. The Striking Scorpion models had buck-teeth and a large scorpion tail coming from the back of their helmets
Gah! Ah yes, now I remember why I had mercifully forgotten the existence of those figures. Spears were new to 3rd Ed. - though they were in the 2nd Ed. Codex they never received models - and have never been updated.
When the 4th edition codex was released, they redesigned the Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, Dire Avengers, Fire Dragons, and Dark Reapers to the models that they have today.
Unfortunately the Reapers still have the awful skull-headed helmets (there appears to have been a typo in your post). I'm also sadly stuck with the 3rd Ed. models (as I prefer metal to resin) and those things are tiny - maybe the Spiders are better-proportioned relative to the newer figures.
Sure, a grav-tank army will happily pretend to be Alaitoc because all its units can stay far enough from the enemy to get the bonus, but it's not very flavourful and something vehicle-specific would be more welcome.
You are focusing too much on the fact that they are "Craftworld" traits. If you are building your own craftworld and have them use their own special style of fighting that focuses around Falcons and want to use the Alaitoc rules to get the bonus, go ahead and do it. You can simply say that you are using that rule set because it most closely resembles some advanced holo-field technology that is specific to that one special craftworld.
The rules are there to add flavour to the armies. You can make the fluff what ever you want so that the rules make sense.
[/quote]
It's the flavour that's at issue. It's perfectly flavourful to have a Windrider Host - an established general Eldar formation that eventually gave its name to the jetbike unit - instead of Saim-Hann, but fits better whatever fluff you decide upon for the army. Why is it better to decide that your Saim-Hann army represents, say, a Daal-En Windrider Host than that your Windrider Host represents a Saim-Hann army?
The lack of a grav-tank doctrine isn't at issue because you can't interpret one of the existing doctrines as representing it, it's at issue because it doesn't provide any specific bonus that rewards a grav-tank composition as the other unit doctrines do, either directly by referencing the Grav-Tank keyword or generically by providing a bonus that's most effective with those vehicles. As it is the Eldar are short of doctrines relative to other armies - they could always have decided that, say, Yme-Loc is a tank-focused Craftworld and added an Yme-Loc trait.
For instance a grav-tank doctrine makes much more sense with a 'move and fire heavy weapons' rule than a biker doctrine does. Bikes only have access to one heavy weapon as it is.
Perhaps a specific rule allowing a unit with the Grav-Tank keyword to move after embarking a unit, even if that unit has already moved, to reflect a mobile warfare focus. For something more generic, maybe a rule that units with a damage table ignore the BS penalty for the first level of damage, to reflect superior targeting systems. Or a rule allowing rerolled misses with heavy weapons, to compensate for the lower overall firepower of a tank-based army given that Eldar tanks cost a lot and rarely have more than one primary weapon system. There are many possible options they could have settled on.
-
Looks like shoot + scoot is back, and it can apply to anything!
At the moment I read that as running out of ideas on ways to spend command points. Useful, yeah, but since everything moves so darn quick now, it typically means what ever is going to shoot at your unit just has to move. It will be interesting to see what has happened to battle focus though.
OK so scatter lasers getting a point reduction... big whoop, unless it gets an AP modifier its not that useful. The shuriken cannon is still a better all round option, which can already move and shoot without penalty.. so Wild-host is only really an effective buff for spears and vypers as they now get the biker keyword.
Vypers are physically large and as a unit need very large LOS blocking terrain. So how useful they are will be terrain dependant... which most armies have a way of getting around any way, DS, fliers or just straight up speed. It will be interesting to see how the points work out now, I would like to see them back on the table again.
Although I'm most excited about the Fire Prism changes being "vastly improved", will Eldar finally get a tank that can put out 30 shots as well? :)
-
OK so scatter lasers getting a point reduction... big whoop, unless it gets an AP modifier its not that useful. The shuriken cannon is still a better all round option, which can already move and shoot without penalty.. so Wild-host is only really an effective buff for spears and vypers as they now get the biker keyword.
If we ignore points cost and compare Scatter Laser and Shuriken Cannon:
- Scatter laser shoots more, but Shuriken Cannon effectively has -1 AP on average.
- Scatter laser has more range.
- Shuriken Cannon can move and fire without penalty, or Advance and fire with a minor penalty (or no penalty, depending on the platform)
In my view, the extra shooting from Scatter Laser tends to be counteracted by penalty of moving and firing, and that's not even accounting for the AP. Against heavily armored enemies like Marines, the AP from Shuriken Cannon more than makes up for the lower rate of fire.
So where can Scatter Laser shine? Well, two places in my opinion:
1. Range. Shuriken Cannon, when fired, is always within range to receive small arms fire. A Scatter Laser user at max range will not receive return fire from small arms. This might not seem very important on something that is going to get up close and personal regardless (like a Wave Serpent) but for Jetbikes this can matter.
2. Effectiveness vs very very lightly armored enemies, or enemies who rely on invuln saves. The Shuriken Cannon's advantage against armored enemies is not as important or is irrelevant compared to the Scatter Laser's greater rate of fire against an enemy like Orkz (haha, pierced my armor? The joke's on you, i don't have any) or Harlequins.
But it can also shine in another way, if its price is reduced:
3. Cost.
If a Scatter Laser instead of costing more than a Shuriken Cannon, would cost less, we would see it used a lot. For example, let's say (I would be very surprised if this were the case) it cost 7 points less than a Shuriken Cannon. By swapping from twin Shuriken Cannons to twin Scatter Lasers on a Wave Serpent, I could save 14 points, while retaining similar firepower against many targets. Now, this is probably not what it will cost, but it's a useful thing to keep in mind.
So Scatter Laser is not strictly worse than Shuriken Cannon, and with a price reduction (as GW has said is coming) I think that there will be times it will be useful.
-
Unfortunately the Reapers still have the awful skull-headed helmets (there appears to have been a typo in your post). I'm also sadly stuck with the 3rd Ed. models (as I prefer metal to resin) and those things are tiny - maybe the Spiders are better-proportioned relative to the newer figures.
To be clear, these are the Dark Reaper models that I am referring to:
(https://i.imgur.com/WA6BZc0.jpg)
So, no typo. These models are superior to the ones they have on the market now, and superior to the second edition models as well.
It's the flavour that's at issue. It's perfectly flavourful to have a Windrider Host - an established general Eldar formation that eventually gave its name to the jetbike unit - instead of Saim-Hann, but fits better whatever fluff you decide upon for the army. Why is it better to decide that your Saim-Hann army represents, say, a Daal-En Windrider Host than that your Windrider Host represents a Saim-Hann army?
Why is it so hard to make the adjustment and say that "This is a Daal-En Windrider Host. Rules wise it follows the Saim-Hann entry"?
GW always has formed their rules around the primary force that uses a certain style, and then allows for off-shoots to use the same rules. Perfect example are Space Marine Successor Chapters. There is no point in demanding that Angels of Absolution get their own specific doctrine when they fight exactly as the Dark Angels do. Paint the models different, and say that they are the successor.
The lack of a grav-tank doctrine isn't at issue because you can't interpret one of the existing doctrines as representing it, it's at issue because it doesn't provide any specific bonus that rewards a grav-tank composition as the other unit doctrines do, either directly by referencing the Grav-Tank keyword or generically by providing a bonus that's most effective with those vehicles. As it is the Eldar are short of doctrines relative to other armies - they could always have decided that, say, Yme-Loc is a tank-focused Craftworld and added an Yme-Loc trait.
For instance a grav-tank doctrine makes much more sense with a 'move and fire heavy weapons' rule than a biker doctrine does. Bikes only have access to one heavy weapon as it is.
Perhaps a specific rule allowing a unit with the Grav-Tank keyword to move after embarking a unit, even if that unit has already moved, to reflect a mobile warfare focus. For something more generic, maybe a rule that units with a damage table ignore the BS penalty for the first level of damage, to reflect superior targeting systems. Or a rule allowing rerolled misses with heavy weapons, to compensate for the lower overall firepower of a tank-based army given that Eldar tanks cost a lot and rarely have more than one primary weapon system. There are many possible options they could have settled on.
Really, if you are unable to look at the attributes and not find a way to apply them to a armoured force, that is more of your issue than anything else. Assuming Alaitoc gets the -1 to hit, you can use that to represent an advanced holo-field. And how you are able to look at Iyanden without seeing the huge benefit to tanks is beyond me.
Just because there is no one that specifically says "this works on tanks," does not mean that they won't benefit.
You're complaining about a codex where you have been given a sliver of information and saying it is all bad because it doesn't fit your vision. Either take the information that is available and find a way to adapt it to your vision, or wait for the codex to see if you can actually do what you want to do.
-
If we ignore points cost and compare Scatter Laser and Shuriken Cannon:
- Scatter laser shoots more, but Shuriken Cannon effectively has -1 AP on average.
- Scatter laser has more range.
- Shuriken Cannon can move and fire without penalty, or Advance and fire with a minor penalty (or no penalty, depending on the platform)
So where can Scatter Laser shine? Well, two places in my opinion:
1. Range. Shuriken Cannon, when fired, is always within range to receive small arms fire. A Scatter Laser user at max range will not receive return fire from small arms. This might not seem very important on something that is going to get up close and personal regardless (like a Wave Serpent) but for Jetbikes this can matter.
2. Effectiveness vs very very lightly armored enemies, or enemies who rely on invuln saves. The Shuriken Cannon's advantage against armored enemies is not as important or is irrelevant compared to the Scatter Laser's greater rate of fire against an enemy like Orkz (haha, pierced my armor? The joke's on you, i don't have any) or Harlequins.
But it can also shine in another way, if its price is reduced:
3. Cost.
If a Scatter Laser instead of costing more than a Shuriken Cannon, would cost less, we would see it used a lot. For example, let's say (I would be very surprised if this were the case) it cost 7 points less than a Shuriken Cannon. By swapping from twin Shuriken Cannons to twin Scatter Lasers on a Wave Serpent, I could save 14 points, while retaining similar firepower against many targets. Now, this is probably not what it will cost, but it's a useful thing to keep in mind.
So Scatter Laser is not strictly worse than Shuriken Cannon, and with a price reduction (as GW has said is coming) I think that there will be times it will be useful.
The problem with Range, is this is SPAR.. I mean 8th ed :) Most deployment scenarios can have units very close at the start, pin point DS, open topped transports, super fast assault troops, etc, combines to make range beyond 24" almost pointless, now. Maybe a better way of saying that, it has become rather situational, where previous editions you could reasonably rely on keeping at a distance for a while.
Point cost, would I take them at 7 points... it would make me really think about, especially if I'm tight on points. At 10 points, no, shuriken is still better more often. At their current (index) cost but with -1 AP.... well that's where things get interesting.
-
Unfortunately the Reapers still have the awful skull-headed helmets (there appears to have been a typo in your post). I'm also sadly stuck with the 3rd Ed. models (as I prefer metal to resin) and those things are tiny - maybe the Spiders are better-proportioned relative to the newer figures.
To be clear, these are the Dark Reaper models that I am referring to:
(https://i.imgur.com/WA6BZc0.jpg)
So, no typo. These models are superior to the ones they have on the market now, and superior to the second edition models as well.
Those are the ones I have, which I think are the 3rd Ed figures. They're terrible and poorly-scaled - the ones available now aren't much of an improvement but have a bit of heft to them rather than actually being smaller than the other Aspects. The RT helmets were as comical as they were conical, but they were a better idea stylistically - a death mask on an Eldar helmet rather than a poorly-proportioned full skull helmet (problem with skull helmets, if you want them to actually look like skulls, is that they have to look like skulls only larger, with the end result that you have a model with a too-large head).
Why is it so hard to make the adjustment and say that "This is a Daal-En Windrider Host. Rules wise it follows the Saim-Hann entry"?
In rules-lawyer terms it doesn't technically work for a start, since the rule explicitly only applies to units with the Saim-Hann keyword. The issue is not that it can't be made to work, but that it's equally easy to say "This is a Saim-Hann army. Rules-wise it follows the Windrider Host entry" and that that's simply a better and more elegant solution for a generic Codex.
GW always has formed their rules around the primary force that uses a certain style, and then allows for off-shoots to use the same rules.
And that precedent itself leads to flavour difficulties. Different Craftworlds aren't successors of one another, they just have comparable military formations. If Eldar Craftworlds had specific traits like the Death Company or whatever that demanded a specific faction rule that would be one thing, but the Eldar Craftworlds are much more generic - they always have been thinly-disguised stand-ins for armies favouring specific unit types that are generally available to all Eldar armies.
Really, if you are unable to look at the attributes and not find a way to apply them to a armoured force, that is more of your issue than anything else. Assuming Alaitoc gets the -1 to hit, you can use that to represent an advanced holo-field. And how you are able to look at Iyanden without seeing the huge benefit to tanks is beyond me.
Just because there is no one that specifically says "this works on tanks," does not mean that they won't benefit.
Once again you're missing the point entirely. You could as easily argue that Saim-Hann doesn't need a doctrine because Iyanden is good for bike armies, thanks to their small unit sizes, or that because Biel-Tan gives a blanket bonus to shuriken weapons there's no need for an Ulthwe doctrine. Having a specific doctrine that works with bikers allows a bike army to play differently from an Iyanden one, whether it references the unit type or not. There's plenty of space to explore doctrines that allow different playstyles - the Eldar have unusually few with only five.
Incidentally, Iyanden offers essentially no benefit to tank armies that aren't just Wave Serpents stuffed with Wraithguard - the damage table rule explicitly applies only to Wraith Constructs and the morale rule is irrelevant to things that come in units of one.
You're complaining about a codex where you have been given a sliver of information and saying it is all bad because it doesn't fit your vision. Either take the information that is available and find a way to adapt it to your vision, or wait for the codex to see if you can actually do what you want to do.
I'm doing nothing more than pointing out that there was a more elegant way to present a specific feature of the Codex, one that would work better with both fluff and flavour and would permit a wider range of doctrine options without requiring any changes to the new rules. I've said nothing about the content of the rules changes beyond expressing optimism.
-
Incidentally, Iyanden offers essentially no benefit to tank armies that aren't just Wave Serpents stuffed with Wraithguard - the damage table rule explicitly applies only to Wraith Constructs and the morale rule is irrelevant to things that come in units of one.
This is false. Re-read the Stoic Endurance Craftworld Attribute: Craftworld Focus: Iyanden – Warhammer Community (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/16/craftworld-focus-iyanden-oct-16gw-homepage-post-3/)
This attribute does not at any point reference "Wraith Constructs" and by wording it applies to any unit with a damage chart, Wraith Construct or no. In a paragraph following the rules screenshot, they specifically say "Stoic Endurance helps your tanks" so I think we can safely agree that Iyanden's Stoic Endurance attribute offers a benefit to tanks.
-
Why is it so hard to make the adjustment and say that "This is a Daal-En Windrider Host. Rules wise it follows the Saim-Hann entry"?
In rules-lawyer terms it doesn't technically work for a start, since the rule explicitly only applies to units with the Saim-Hann keyword. The issue is not that it can't be made to work, but that it's equally easy to say "This is a Saim-Hann army. Rules-wise it follows the Windrider Host entry" and that that's simply a better and more elegant solution for a generic Codex.
That makes no sense what so ever. Your army list that you write out has absolutely dick to do with how your army is painted or the fluff that you wish to follow. Yes, it says that the rules apply to the Saim-Hann keyword. So give your Daal-en Windrider Host the Saim-Hann keyword. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? It follows the age old tradition of "counts-as," and no where in the gaming community are you ever going to find someone that has an issue with a custom craftworld using the rules from one of the major craftworlds. And if you do, cut that person out of your life; you don't need that kind of negativity.
GW always has formed their rules around the primary force that uses a certain style, and then allows for off-shoots to use the same rules.
And that precedent itself leads to flavour difficulties. Different Craftworlds aren't successors of one another, they just have comparable military formations. If Eldar Craftworlds had specific traits like the Death Company or whatever that demanded a specific faction rule that would be one thing, but the Eldar Craftworlds are much more generic - they always have been thinly-disguised stand-ins for armies favouring specific unit types that are generally available to all Eldar armies.
So... Eldar are special little snow flakes then where each one is different and doesn't conform to the fighting styles of the major Craftworlds? I'm starting to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Eldar are more generic, which means they would be more flexible in adapting to the various fighting styles that major Craftworlds are famous for. But because they are not successor chapters, it makes no sense for them to be able to adapt their fighting styles? You do understand that that is exactly what you are advocating right now, right?
Really, if you are unable to look at the attributes and not find a way to apply them to a armoured force, that is more of your issue than anything else. Assuming Alaitoc gets the -1 to hit, you can use that to represent an advanced holo-field. And how you are able to look at Iyanden without seeing the huge benefit to tanks is beyond me.
Just because there is no one that specifically says "this works on tanks," does not mean that they won't benefit.
Once again you're missing the point entirely. You could as easily argue that Saim-Hann doesn't need a doctrine because Iyanden is good for bike armies, thanks to their small unit sizes, or that because Biel-Tan gives a blanket bonus to shuriken weapons there's no need for an Ulthwe doctrine. Having a specific doctrine that works with bikers allows a bike army to play differently from an Iyanden one, whether it references the unit type or not. There's plenty of space to explore doctrines that allow different playstyles - the Eldar have unusually few with only five.
(https://i.imgur.com/Q15SWm2.gif)
I can't even discern a coherent thought out of... that.
Incidentally, Iyanden offers essentially no benefit to tank armies that aren't just Wave Serpents stuffed with Wraithguard - the damage table rule explicitly applies only to Wraith Constructs and the morale rule is irrelevant to things that come in units of one.
As Blazinghang mentioned, there is no phrasing in the preview that even slightly indicates it is wraith constructs only.
You're complaining about a codex where you have been given a sliver of information and saying it is all bad because it doesn't fit your vision. Either take the information that is available and find a way to adapt it to your vision, or wait for the codex to see if you can actually do what you want to do.
I'm doing nothing more than pointing out that there was a more elegant way to present a specific feature of the Codex, one that would work better with both fluff and flavour and would permit a wider range of doctrine options without requiring any changes to the new rules. I've said nothing about the content of the rules changes beyond expressing optimism.
Considering you are hyper-focused on the whole Windrider Host idea, I'm sure part of the reason why they don't follow that is because it doesn't fully work without going down the road of the 4th edition Space Marine Chapter Traits and Imperial Guard Doctrines. in other words, "Here is a massive list of rules that you get to choose from. Have fun!"
The game doesn't need that level of crap any more. Be glad they are adding this level of customization at all. You could have just been stuck with the past couple methods of theme for an army where it was simply the models you took and nothing else.
-
Most of the weapon designs changed significantly, particularly shuriken and lasweapons, and the Guardian plate armour style was applied to all infantry (and later to Wraiththings) - it's a much wider-ranging change than you describe, quite aside from changes in proportion.
The changes to las weapons only really affected Swooping Hawks, and I avoid this problem by using my Rogue Trader Swooping Hawk squad. These models are far more elegant than the awful third edition sculpts in any event, but again this is subjective, so if you take a different view that's fair enough. Your characterisation of Shuriken weapons seems exaggerated to me though. The differences are more subtle than you're suggesting, at least they always have been to my eye.
Pretty sure only the Dark Reapers were changed - indeed if I'm remembering correctly not all the Aspects received 3rd Ed. models, instead there were Reapers, Banshees and Scorpions in 3rd Ed. and all the rest - along with new Reapers - were new to 4th Edition. To this day the Banshees and Scorpions still have the 3rd Ed. models (the latter of which aren't nearly as bad as GW's genius for painting models in a way that shows them to worst effect suggests, but could stand improvement - the oversized pistols being a big offender).
GML has already cleared this up, but just to add that I would agree with concerns about out of proportion weapons and other design flaws with the third edition Aspect Warriors. This, in my view, is why they were so swiftly replaced by new sculpts for fourth edition.
You're not bothered that death spinners are larger than wraithcannon and make reaper launchers look like popguns? Or that Spiders as models are half as wide again as a Dark Reaper with purportedly equally thick armour?
I'm, not bothered in the least. In the first instance, you're not comparing like with like. Dark Reapers had missile launchers in Rogue Trader and second edition. This is part of the reason why they look different. In any event, the difference is not enough to concern me. As for Warp Spiders, they are bulky because of the Warp Jump Generator in their backs, so they're bound to look bulkier than Dark Reapers for that reason.
What of those of us who simply have custom Craftworlds, especially if they've developed a backstory that demands a focus on unit types - such as grav-tanks or fliers - that don't have an official Craftworld analogue?
There's no issue here that I can see. You can just opt for the counts as option that GML outlined in his answer to you and use narrative to make the rest of the distinctions. You can impose your own restrictions on the types of units that you can take, for example. A group of us built a whole path of command concept around this very concept when this forum used to have multiple PoCs. It's through creating this narrative that it becomes possible to differentiate craftworld backgrounds.
As an old-time Epic fan I've always liked to think of my 40k army as representing part of a Host-level formation, specialised along similar lines - and frankly that's all the Craftworld buffs here do, other than demanding a colour scheme-based keyword. Plus it adds variety in practice if you can take a Guardian-based army to one game and use an appropriate bonus, and a Wind Rider host to another.
As a fellow Epic player from the Space Marine era myself, it's important to remember that the only distinguishing features for craftworlds back then were the free cards which you could take. Otherwise, the craftworlds used the same units. Subsequent editions of Epic differentiate the craftworlds more, but these are mostly developments by the player base, not by GW. On that basis, I think that you're expecting a bit too much from the forthcoming codex.
On the Scatter Laser debate. Range is a big issue for me, especially when fighting opposing armies with a lot of 24" weapons and assault oriented armies. I want to keep fragile units, such as Guardians with weapon platforms, well away from these sorts of threats, so the extra range boost offered by the Scatter Laser becomes much more attractive for me if the cost is coming down.
-
That makes no sense what so ever. Your army list that you write out has absolutely dick to do with how your army is painted or the fluff that you wish to follow. Yes, it says that the rules apply to the Saim-Hann keyword. So give your Daal-en Windrider Host the Saim-Hann keyword. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
This is where I become convinced you're arguing purely for the sake of arguing. Do you genuinely not understand that all I did was make a mild point that they could have used exactly the same rules, with exactly the same templating, and just given them a name that was a better flavour fit? That you can do X is entirely irrelevant - there's no necessity for them to have forced players to use the 'count as' solution at all.
I'm really not sure why pointing out that a different naming convention would have been better has promoted multiple posts of counter-argument.
GW always has formed their rules around the primary force that uses a certain style, and then allows for off-shoots to use the same rules.
And that precedent itself leads to flavour difficulties. Different Craftworlds aren't successors of one another, they just have comparable military formations. If Eldar Craftworlds had specific traits like the Death Company or whatever that demanded a specific faction rule that would be one thing, but the Eldar Craftworlds are much more generic - they always have been thinly-disguised stand-ins for armies favouring specific unit types that are generally available to all Eldar armies.
So... Eldar are special little snow flakes then where each one is different and doesn't conform to the fighting styles of the major Craftworlds? I'm starting to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.[/quote]
I'm not even sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to be working backwards. The major Craftworlds aren't meaningfully distinct entities like Space Marine Chapters - they were created as exemplars for a particular style of army and never evolved beyond that. With that background it simply doesn't make a lot of sense to have 'Craftworld Biel-Tan' instead of 'Aspect Host' as the doctrine flavour, because Biel-Tan is just an example of a Craftworld that makes a lot of use of Aspect Hosts.
Yes, you can use the 'count as' approach, but then if you go that route they could just have named the book 'Codex Biel-Tan' and you can just count your army from any other Craftworld as Biel-Tan (didn't they do exactly that once with the Ultramarines)? It doesn't seem obviously preferable to do that instead of having a generic Craftworlds Codex.
(https://i.imgur.com/Q15SWm2.gif)
I can't even discern a coherent thought out of... that.
I'm not sure where the difficulty lies. Do you have difficulty with the concept that Swooping Hawks can have different rules from Dark Reapers and that those make them play differently? If not, why is this any more complicated?
Maybe an off-the-cuff example would illustrate the point better:
Mobile Warfare
ASURYANI units with the Battle Focus ability are able to advance and fire with heavy weapons, with the penalty for moving and shooting. Units with the GRAV-TANK keyword do not suffer a penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons unless they advance.
Additionally, the Fire and Fade Stratagem can be used more than once per Shooting phase so long as every targeted unit has the FLY or GRAV-TANK keyword.
Hey presto, a sixth doctrine that promotes mobile, vehicle-based shooting builds, and doesn't interfere in any way with any of the existing options. Once again I fail to see any issue with simply providing useful alternative options.
Incidentally, Iyanden offers essentially no benefit to tank armies that aren't just Wave Serpents stuffed with Wraithguard - the damage table rule explicitly applies only to Wraith Constructs and the morale rule is irrelevant to things that come in units of one.
As Blazinghang mentioned, there is no phrasing in the preview that even slightly indicates it is wraith constructs only.[/quote]
Okay, seems I was remembering one of the other previewed Iyanden rules.
The game doesn't need that level of crap any more. Be glad they are adding this level of customization at all. You could have just been stuck with the past couple methods of theme for an army where it was simply the models you took and nothing else.
I'd be fine without any doctrine system - I simply don't see a need for the one that exists to have the flavour it does. Space Marines and Chaos have something like eight doctrines each to choose from - why would a sixth for Eldar be excessive?
a fellow Epic player from the Space Marine era myself, it's important to remember that the only distinguishing features for craftworlds back then were the free cards which you could take. Otherwise, the craftworlds used the same units. Subsequent editions of Epic differentiate the craftworlds more, but these are mostly developments by the player base, not by GW. On that basis, I think that you're expecting a bit too much from the forthcoming codex.
The Craftworlds still use the same units and have no uniquely distinguishing features other than their preferred army formations. The one effort made to give Craftworlds distinct units was dropped in later editions - even the Seer Council became a generic 'Warlock Conclave'. We're told the that one of the super-heavy grav-tanks is now considered unique to Biel-Tan, but as it doesn't have a 40k model that's not relevant to distinguishing Craftworlds.
Inasmuch as their formations are described as unique to the Craftworld in the background, this isn't well-reflected in the rules. The Swordwind is not just an Aspect Host - it's an Aspect Host that emphasises transports and mobile warfare, for instance. The rules given are simply a better fit for a generic Aspect Host. The only concession to something flavour-specific to a particular Craftworld is the Saim-Hann charge bonus, which is a bit out of place in a generic biker host.
-
I don't really see why Grav-Tanks need anything specific. I like the traits for the different craftworlds, as they are flexible enough to apply to all units in your army (besides Samn-Hann and their silly bikes). I believe traits should give flavour to the army, and something to build around, but not dictate what units you take.
I'd be fine without any doctrine system - I simply don't see a need for the one that exists to have the flavour it does. Space Marines and Chaos have something like eight doctrines each to choose from - why would a sixth for Eldar be excessive?
Not really a contest to see who has more. Death Guard has only one trait, for example. Marines have more, as there are rules for all the main established legions/chapters.
Eldar have the 5 established craftworlds (besides maybe Beil-Tan, who don't have a craftworld anymore...too soon?)
The old models are an issue, but all pewter/ Finecast units need to be re-made into plastic. Eldar have a particularly vintage model range. The fact the aspects don't really apply themselves to be multi-part plastic kits also hurts them.
-
The Craftworlds still use the same units and have no uniquely distinguishing features other than their preferred army formations. The one effort made to give Craftworlds distinct units was dropped in later editions - even the Seer Council became a generic 'Warlock Conclave'. We're told the that one of the super-heavy grav-tanks is now considered unique to Biel-Tan, but as it doesn't have a 40k model that's not relevant to distinguishing Craftworlds.
What's the problem with this? If you want to make your army along craftworld lines, you can just choose units which fit that craftworld's narrative. It seems very straightforward to me.
Inasmuch as their formations are described as unique to the Craftworld in the background, this isn't well-reflected in the rules. The Swordwind is not just an Aspect Host - it's an Aspect Host that emphasises transports and mobile warfare, for instance. The rules given are simply a better fit for a generic Aspect Host. The only concession to something flavour-specific to a particular Craftworld is the Saim-Hann charge bonus, which is a bit out of place in a generic biker host.
To make the Biel-Tan Swordwind host that you're talking about requires far too many vehicles that you could afford in a regular game of 40K anyway, so if wanted to create an accurate representation of that, you'd have to play Epic ;). That said, you can make such an army on a smaller scale by just fielding a lot of Aspect Warriors mounted in Wave Serpents.
In essence, the new codex will have a few craftworld type bonuses, which are likely to feel rather generic to some. I have no issue with that myself, since I believe the best way to reflect a craftworld army is through unit selection, rather than through the rules.
-
So Alaitoc was as expected. I'm happy the rangers are cheaper now. Very easy to fit in any list at the cost. Very happy.
Also happy with the Prism change. Firing twice is makes then worth it. The linked beams is great as it doesn't increase a single shot profile. They all get to fire with rerolls.
-
60pts for a unit of rangers is unreal. That's incredible for what you get. Holy moly. Gonna call it as best troops choice in the book, hands down.
-
having played three games yestewrday, I can honestly say my weaithguard aren't going to make use of the stoic endurance trait. But hell it would help on the lords and the knight and the wave serpents - as well as the guardians
On Eldar only getting 5 traits - I'm happy we get traits at all. Death guard and grey knights got none - and while I'd be thrilled if my Lamenters got a seperate trait from the blood angels, I'm not counting on it.
But more importantly - who says ir's only these 5 traits? These are the traits they chose to show, there may actually be more in the codex.
I like that the traits have craftworld names associated with them too. Experienced players can mix and match and counts as all they want (use them as warhost traits, or windrider traits), while for players new to the game and the lore it may be a clear jumping off point to discover more about the craftworlds and what makes them what they are.
-
60pts for a unit of rangers is unreal. That's incredible for what you get. Holy moly. Gonna call it as best troops choice in the book, hands down.
They were just as cheap in the pervious edition I believe. Just snipers didn't work the same.
They're far from the best troops choice as they're hyper specific in their purpose. Guardians and Avengers are more flexible.
-
60pts for a unit of rangers is unreal. That's incredible for what you get. Holy moly. Gonna call it as best troops choice in the book, hands down.
They were just as cheap in the pervious edition I believe. Just snipers didn't work the same.
They're far from the best troops choice as they're hyper specific in their purpose. Guardians and Avengers are more flexible.
180pts to fulfill the three troops in a Battalion detachment is really nice.
-
Fire prism fix is huge. Being able to fire its cannon at the same rate as the Night Spinner in its anti-infantry mode makes it very strong. ~4 shots on Focussed mode, even if the damage output isn't great, is still pretty respectable also.
Ranger price reduction is bigger than I thought it would be, and is a pleasant surprise. This makes a minimum squad of Rangers almost the cheapest Troop Eldar can take, maybe I'll give them a shot. I'm not sure it'll actually make sense to take lots of rangers (at least for my footdar army) but taking one squad of 5 seems more viable now.
Craftworld Trait was what I expected.
-
Super stoked on Rangers + Prisms. I've been using Rangers in every game of 8th and they've been of immense value. I've played IG non-stop... and their character killing prowess really turned the tides on so many occasions. I could see taking Illic + 3x Rangers in an Alaitoc and some Reapers and Fire Prisms all damn day, supported by a Ynnari Outrider with jetbikes + incubi and wraithguard/blades. I think that'd be a super nice counter to the super competitive IG lists I've been playing against. Even have my Rangers painted in a unique scheme to get some nice fluff tied in.
-
I was thinking the same Autarch with reaper launcher, sniping characters, but I think you can do that even better with Illic, if my source is correct his gun got a serious buff.
-
This is probably similar to Kor'Sarro Khan not having his bike in the current marine dex so youre to use the rules from the index. Where I saw this I cannot recall but I have lots of autarchs with various gear & like hell Im not using it!
Here found it on this page. Might print it out for my own record.
Codexes: Your Questions Answered – Warhammer Community (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/)
"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."
-
Yeah, gw is getting into the habit of only publishing rules for models and options that come in kits they sell.
Something I have no issue with, to be honest. I like knowing that if a unit has an option, it's all in the box.
-
Translation: Get all the books. Otherwise, get a new model that has the data sheet included, if you're lucky.
-
For what it's worth the Games Workshop rule is that if a model does not appear in a new Codex then it can still legally be played using the index rules for that model. An example of this is the techmarine on bike. This is normally done with models that GW no longer produces. So you can still use your warp jump generator autarch!
-
For what it's worth the Games Workshop rule is that if a model does not appear in a new Codex then it can still legally be played using the index rules for that model. An example of this is the techmarine on bike. This is normally done with models that GW no longer produces. So you can still use your warp jump generator autarch!
Curious how this works if point cost of wargear is different between index and codex.
-
Curious how this works if point cost of wargear is different between index and codex.
You use the most recent points published for that model and its weapons
-
I'm a huge fan of Iyanden, but I'm assuming the Wraithseer from FW gets screwed a little? Will stay at T8 and doesn't have the new "wraith construct" keyword. I assume we have to wait for a FW errata or codex before we can presume these changes will happen?
-
I'm a huge fan of Iyanden, but I'm assuming the Wraithseer from FW gets screwed a little? Will stay at T8 and doesn't have the new "wraith construct" keyword. I assume we have to wait for a FW errata or codex before we can presume these changes will happen?
Yeah. Safe so assume forge world won't update their rules for a while. They are in no hurry to release updates/faq's. GW on the other hand is on fire.
-
A reminder that while we are being rather liberal here, owing to the fact that the rules are still officially rumours until the new codex is actually released, it still isn't permissible to ask for links to images, scans, or video reviews of the alleged actual codex. Posts asking for this have had to be removed as a result.
-
Yeah, gw is getting into the habit of only publishing rules for models and options that come in kits they sell.
Something I have no issue with, to be honest. I like knowing that if a unit has an option, it's all in the box.
Do we know if the Exarch options that have no models (Dark Reaper shuriken cannon, Hawk sunrifle and power sword, Scorpion chainsabres, Warp Spider spinneret rifle) and those whose models have been retired (Banshee mirrorswords, Fire Dragon flamer) have been removed as well?
-
Yeah, gw is getting into the habit of only publishing rules for models and options that come in kits they sell.
Something I have no issue with, to be honest. I like knowing that if a unit has an option, it's all in the box.
Do we know if the Exarch options that have no models (Dark Reaper shuriken cannon, Hawk sunrifle and power sword, Scorpion chainsabres, Warp Spider spinneret rifle) and those whose models have been retired (Banshee mirrorswords, Fire Dragon flamer) have been removed as well?
Gonna assume, that any option which doesn't come in the box, won't be in the book. I thought all those weapon options came in the aspect boxes though.
That is the precedent so far, based on all the books so far released.
-
I can confirm Reaper Exarch still has the shuriken cannon and Dragons have the DBF option. It seems the Hawk lost both gun options as well as spider Exarch losing the spinneret rifle. Sad.
-
Hopefully they'll be options in the much-anticipated plastic aspect warrior kits that we all keep dreaming about. Maybe one day.
-
All these models losing options really annoys me, since I spent a lot of time and effort converting and making models. Especially for models that have had these things as options for a long time, rules-wise.
-
Well the problem I have with this is the fact that most armies are starved for new kit and models dont have previously listed options.
While the sm get new kits every edition with all the options is really really annoying
-
Well the problem I have with this is the fact that most armies are starved for new kit and models dont have previously listed options.
While the sm get new kits every edition with all the options is really really annoying
Space marines lost a bunch of options with the change from index to codex as well. More then eldar will.
-
All these models losing options really annoys me, since I spent a lot of time and effort converting and making models. Especially for models that have had these things as options for a long time, rules-wise.
I believe the official ruling from GW is that any units/options that existed in the Index books that is not listed in the codex may still be taken using the Index entry. For example, Roughriders are apparently not in the new IG codex (so I've read -- I don't own the IG book, so I can't say for sure), but IG players are still allowed to field Roughriders using the entry from Index Imperium II. Likewise, Marine players who lost Dreadnought or Razorback weapon options can still use the Index Imperium I entry for those units to get their desired options back.
It's a really messy state of affairs, and I fully expect that once GW gets the initial dump of books out of the way and gets back to making plastic toys we'll see models packaged with datasheets with their appropriate rules, giving you a lovely stack of books, pamphlets, printed FAQs, and eventually Chapter Approved books to haul around.
Things will then get slightly neater with the release of Chapter Approved for a few months, while new releases continue to produce new model-specific datasheets, which will then be collated in the next Chapter Approved book.
-
Hmm, given that Eldar have a bunch of other ways of getting harder to hit (Rangers, Flyers, Conceal, etc) is it possible someone could run an Alaitoc army where the vast majority of the army is at -2 to hit from enemies? This seems like it would be incredibly strong, too strong imo:
Space Marine firepower would be halved against such an army.
Guardsman firepower cut in a third.
Conscripts would not be able to hit at all.
EDIT:
something like
ALAITOC
++Battalion
+HQ+
Farseer
Warlock with Conceal
+Troops+
5 Rangers
5 Rangers
5 Rangers
+Elite+
5 Wraithguard
5 Wraithguard
+Transport+
Serpent with Vectored Engines
Serpent with Vectored Engines
++Air Wing
Hemlock Wraithfighter
Crimson Hunter
Crimson Hunter
++Outrider
Autarch with WJG
5 Warp Spiders
5 Warp Spiders
5 Warp Spiders
Could present only super duper hard to hit stuff, for example.
-
Gonna assume, that any option which doesn't come in the box, won't be in the book. I thought all those weapon options came in the aspect boxes though.
I've never picked up any of the resin boxed sets (when I last bought Aspect Warriors they still came in blister packs and Exarchs came in separate ones) but my understanding is that the only options they come with are the ones shown on the box. Which implies two of the 4th Ed. Exarchs 0 the Banshee and Fire Dragon - with alternate weapon options are no longer supported (I may be misremembering the Dark Reaper - it's possible that once had a model with a shuriken cannon). The Hawk and Spider options have certainly never had models, and I don't think the Scorpion did.
I can confirm Reaper Exarch still has the shuriken cannon and Dragons have the DBF option. It seems the Hawk lost both gun options as well as spider Exarch losing the spinneret rifle. Sad.
Thanks. The DBF is the only one that specifically affects any models I have, and I do sometimes use the option in part because my firepike Exarch is in another country.
I believe the official ruling from GW is that any units/options that existed in the Index books that is not listed in the codex may still be taken using the Index entry. For example, Roughriders are apparently not in the new IG codex (so I've read -- I don't own the IG book, so I can't say for sure), but IG players are still allowed to field Roughriders using the entry from Index Imperium II. Likewise, Marine players who lost Dreadnought or Razorback weapon options can still use the Index Imperium I entry for those units to get their desired options back.
I think the issue is that now these options have been officially removed, they're unlikely to return because any revision to the model range will need to be consistent with the current Codex. When the Warp Spiders are finally revised they aren't going to get an Exarch option with a spinneret rifle because they'd need to put rules for the unit into a datasheet and that would just be confusing for a unit that already has full rules in a Codex. The big issue is likely to be the Autarch, who's now going to be pretty short of options relative to most characters and whose options don't even fully support the available official models (it's been discontinued, but the Scorpion-helmeted Autarch model does have a warp jump generator).
Hmm, given that Eldar have a bunch of other ways of getting harder to hit (Rangers, Flyers, Conceal, etc) is it possible someone could run an Alaitoc army where the vast majority of the army is at -2 to hit from enemies? This seems like it would be incredibly strong, too strong imo:
Remember the Alaitoc bonus doesn't work at ranges closer than 12". All the units other than the fliers and Serpents in this list have 12" range, aside from the Rangers who have low firepower output and can't evade deep strike or enemy fliers very well. If your plan is to get Wraithguard into range with Wave Serpents, they won't get this bonus even for a turn unless you're moving second (in which case they'll take a bit less damage on their Wave Serpents but were probably going to survive anyway).
It's also an army built around modifiers that do nothing at all against close combat armies. It does help the fliers, but they could get an equivalent bonus previously.
-
I can confirm Reaper Exarch still has the shuriken cannon and Dragons have the DBF option. It seems the Hawk lost both gun options as well as spider Exarch losing the spinneret rifle. Sad.
Thanks. The DBF is the only one that specifically affects any models I have, and I do sometimes use the option in part because my firepike Exarch is in another country.
I believe the official ruling from GW is that any units/options that existed in the Index books that is not listed in the codex may still be taken using the Index entry. For example, Roughriders are apparently not in the new IG codex (so I've read -- I don't own the IG book, so I can't say for sure), but IG players are still allowed to field Roughriders using the entry from Index Imperium II. Likewise, Marine players who lost Dreadnought or Razorback weapon options can still use the Index Imperium I entry for those units to get their desired options back.
I think the issue is that now these options have been officially removed, they're unlikely to return because any revision to the model range will need to be consistent with the current Codex. When the Warp Spiders are finally revised they aren't going to get an Exarch option with a spinneret rifle because they'd need to put rules for the unit into a datasheet and that would just be confusing for a unit that already has full rules in a Codex. The big issue is likely to be the Autarch, who's now going to be pretty short of options relative to most characters and whose options don't even fully support the available official models (it's been discontinued, but the Scorpion-helmeted Autarch model does have a warp jump generator).
Although I'm concerned with the removal of the rules for models, and I think it bodes ill for that thing ever returning in the future, it doesn't mean GW can't do it. I think it just means they're not interested in it any more. GW can always sell models with data cards coming in their boxes, like is happening currently with the Bonesinger; the fact that it's gone from the Codex doesn't mean GW can't bring it back, just that they likely won't.
-
I'm honestly not worried about options like the Spinneret Rifle coming back. GW has already started putting datasheets in the newer Marine sets, so rules included in the boxes won't be anything new.
I fully expect that if (and that's a BIG if) GW makes a plastic Warp Spider kit it will feature additional parts for new/restored weapon options. Same for Dark Reapers, Swooping Hawks, and all the rest. GW's modus operandi seems to be to include extra parts on all of their new plastic kits.
Also, as I mentioned before, GW's official stance is that the Index versions of the units are still legal. So the Warp Spider exarch can still use the Spinneret Rifle, if you use the entry from the Index (including the points costs). Basically the codex and index versions exist in parallel; one doesn't strictly overrule the other, as was the case in previous editions of 40k.
-
Although I'm concerned with the removal of the rules for models, and I think it bodes ill for that thing ever returning in the future, it doesn't mean GW can't do it. I think it just means they're not interested in it any more. GW can always sell models with data cards coming in their boxes, like is happening currently with the Bonesinger; the fact that it's gone from the Codex doesn't mean GW can't bring it back, just that they likely won't.
It's just cleaning things up. Makes sense to only have rules for what's in the box. And, if the plastic kits we've been getting are any indicator, any new plastic box for older units will be chock full of options.
Also, the trend of rules coming in boxes is nothing new. It's been going on with Age of Sigmar since day 1. It's about time 40k got on board.
Hmm, given that Eldar have a bunch of other ways of getting harder to hit (Rangers, Flyers, Conceal, etc) is it possible someone could run an Alaitoc army where the vast majority of the army is at -2 to hit from enemies? This seems like it would be incredibly strong, too strong imo:
Space Marine firepower would be halved against such an army.
Guardsman firepower cut in a third.
Conscripts would not be able to hit at all.
EDIT:
something like
ALAITOC
++Battalion
+HQ+
Farseer
Warlock with Conceal
+Troops+
5 Rangers
5 Rangers
5 Rangers
+Elite+
5 Wraithguard
5 Wraithguard
+Transport+
Serpent with Vectored Engines
Serpent with Vectored Engines
++Air Wing
Hemlock Wraithfighter
Crimson Hunter
Crimson Hunter
++Outrider
Autarch with WJG
5 Warp Spiders
5 Warp Spiders
5 Warp Spiders
Could present only super duper hard to hit stuff, for example.
Guilliman spam still will probably beat this, and Smite spam is not effected at all. Also, doesn't help in melee.
Situationally, it's good, but it's a gimmick and all gimmicks wax and wane.
-
It doesn't make sense though. Reaper Exarch still has the shuriken cannon even though it's not included. Dragons have the pike and another "gun" that can be a fusion gun or a flamer by all means. Removing the gun options from the hawks is very sad as the sun rifle and talon were both decent options that added something to the unit. The shuriken cannon is never a good pick and the fire pike is at odds with the range of the rest of the unit (it should have just received S9 or S10 or something). The dragon flamer adds needed utility to the unit. The spinneret rifle was also an odd range making it awkward to use with the range of the other spinners.
-
@Partninja, this is actually the first edition that those awkward exarch weapons would make sense, since you can aim them at a different target.
Firepike can aim for a second vehicle that is further away, same with the spinneret rifle and to some extent the sunrifle. shuriken cannon is not useless for reapers, just a weird option.
Maybe we will see a return of these weapons in plastic boxes to come, or maybe just maybe we will get a basic plastic aspect box, then need to get each aspects gearsprues separately?
But that's just me guessing. Could be GW being lazy not fixing the rules and points cost for for example the sunrifle or a combination.
-
@Partninja, this is actually the first edition that those awkward exarch weapons would make sense, since you can aim them at a different target.
Firepike can aim for a second vehicle that is further away, same with the spinneret rifle and to some extent the sunrifle. shuriken cannon is not useless for reapers, just a weird option.
Maybe we will see a return of these weapons in plastic boxes to come, or maybe just maybe we will get a basic plastic aspect box, then need to get each aspects gearsprues separately?
But that's just me guessing. Could be GW being lazy not fixing the rules and points cost for for example the sunrifle or a combination.
The firepike made plenty of sense in 3rd - back then fusion guns were substantially weaker than meltaguns and it had a small blast marker (which was more to exploit the way blast markers worked vs. opem-topped vehicles than any functional utility). Even now it has the minor edge that half range is 3" further than for the rest of the squad.
The options that never got models mostly seemed to be added just to give the units with only one relevant option (power sword on Hawks not really counting as viable) something a bit more viable.
-
A minor edge isn't an edge if the rest of your fusion guns are 3" shy. Things have already gone horribly wrong. The advantage is hardly used or worth the points.
-
A minor edge isn't an edge if the rest of your fusion guns are 3" shy. Things have already gone horribly wrong. The advantage is hardly used or worth the points.
It happens sometimes, when coming out of a Wave Serpent, that you can only go far enough to get some of your Fire Dragons into 6" range, but not all. This has happened to me a few times. For example, let's say your Fire Dragons disembark, move, and advance for a total of 12 inches, to shoot at a rhino that is just under 18 inches away. Their goal is to get into a 6 inch range of the Rhino before they shoot:
(https://i.imgur.com/Sl5zf4c.png)
Your 6 Fire Dragons jump out and run forward:
(https://i.imgur.com/jEyr17V.png)
But... there is only room for 5 of them, within the range they can reach from your transport, to get within 6 inches! One of them is out of range. Now, you can just hop out the Exarch last and have him be at the back of the group, so that in any situation where one can't be into half range it will be him, who is actually inside half range.
Again, not saying this is going to be useful all the time, but playing properly it can still be useful.
-
Sorry to switch topics a bit, but I might have missed something. Can autarchs no longer take a reaper launcher?
-
It doesn't appear to be an option in the codex. However there is an argument that you can still take options from the Index.
-
It doesn't appear to be an option in the codex. However there is an argument that you can still take options from the Index.
Has Games Workshop said that you can take options from the index or has it said that you can take units from the index. I thought it was the latter not the former.
-
It doesn't appear to be an option in the codex. However there is an argument that you can still take options from the Index.
From the community FAQ about the Marine codex:
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
Source: Codexes: Your Questions Answered – Warhammer Community (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/)
I see no reason why this same logic would apply to SM armies, but not to Eldar or anyone else.
-
It doesn't appear to be an option in the codex. However there is an argument that you can still take options from the Index.
From the community FAQ about the Marine codex:
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
Source: Codexes: Your Questions Answered – Warhammer Community (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/)
I see no reason why this same logic would apply to SM armies, but not to Elder or anyone else.
This looks valid to me thank you for the info
-
Got my copy of the Codex today. It all looks very nice. Just repointed my Aspect Host and I've gone from 1750 to 1500 :D
Now to repoint my Wraiths...
-
Got my copy of the Codex today. It all looks very nice. Just repointed my Aspect Host and I've gone from 1750 to 1500 :D
Now to repoint my Wraiths...
Hmm, haven't got the message that mine's shipped yet.
-
Got my copy of the Codex today. It all looks very nice. Just repointed my Aspect Host and I've gone from 1750 to 1500 :D
Now to repoint my Wraiths...
Hmm, haven't got the message that mine's shipped yet.
If you've bought direct from GW, it won't ship until the day of release. Stockists shouldn't ship out early either, so you're unlikely to get it prior to Saturday.
-
Got my copy of the Codex today. It all looks very nice. Just repointed my Aspect Host and I've gone from 1750 to 1500 :D
Now to repoint my Wraiths...
Hmm, haven't got the message that mine's shipped yet.
If you've bought direct from GW, it won't ship until the day of release. Stockists shouldn't ship out early either, so you're unlikely to get it prior to Saturday.
Back when I last played in 3rd/4th, GW was fairly good about sending pre-orders out to arrive on the day of release (and occasionally a day early).
-
Got my copy of the Codex today. It all looks very nice. Just repointed my Aspect Host and I've gone from 1750 to 1500 :D
Now to repoint my Wraiths...
Hmm, haven't got the message that mine's shipped yet.
If you've bought direct from GW, it won't ship until the day of release. Stockists shouldn't ship out early either, so you're unlikely to get it prior to Saturday.
Back when I last played in 3rd/4th, GW was fairly good about sending pre-orders out to arrive on the day of release (and occasionally a day early).
For about 5 years now, orders sent home ship on day of release, while orders sent to a GW store will be there for collection on the release day.
-
There are still beslubber ups now and again. I've received books (once rule book and another codex) on the Thursday and Friday prior to release.
-
As the codex is out today, I've had to remove all posts containing rumoured rules, changes, and content in the codex posted on sites such as Twitch and You Tube, as these have now become printed fact, rather than speculation. Please note that nobody has broken any forum rules, and we regularly clean up topics such as this when an actual codex comes out.
-
I'm pretty impressed by a bunch of the units with the points changes.
Swooping hawks fishing out 20 shots for 65pts is high on my list of units I'd expect to see more of. Any sub 100pt unit which can have such a huge damage output is good in my eyes.
I think eldar brigades are going to be the way to go, as the units are so cheap, and then you can capitalize on command points.
MSU is going to be huge, and I can definitely see illayden guardian blobs being great board control/Tarpit units, as they only loose one model for morale tests. Going to be really hard to shift, especially if you cast conceal and fortune on them!
-
I think eldar brigades are going to be the way to go, as the units are so cheap, and then you can capitalize on command points.
As promising as all of this sounds in practice (still no notification that my Codex has shipped), this simply sounds wrong in principle. Eldar were always designed around the idea of being powerful and specialised, at the cost of being expensive and fragile. Having cheap units as a major Eldar advantage seems weird.
-
It will really depend on the list you're building. Brigades and Battalions are good for the CP. However, Not all lists will require that much CP or can sink that many points even into cheap troops. If I'm making an all jetbike Saim-hann list I really don't have the need or room for taking that many troop units (Rangers or min Avengers). In my LGS games are over by turn two or three. Most lists weren't spending much more than six by then. I aim for six. Nine is about the max I could use given the lists I employ.
-
I'm pretty impressed by a bunch of the units with the points changes.
Swooping hawks fishing out 20 shots for 65pts is high on my list of units I'd expect to see more of. Any sub 100pt unit which can have such a huge damage output is good in my eyes.
I was about to ask whether this was a typo in my german book, but Hawks seem crazy cheap now. And I played them in pretty much every list already with the Index Xenos :o
-
I think eldar brigades are going to be the way to go, as the units are so cheap, and then you can capitalize on command points.
As promising as all of this sounds in practice (still no notification that my Codex has shipped), this simply sounds wrong in principle. Eldar were always designed around the idea of being powerful and specialised, at the cost of being expensive and fragile. Having cheap units as a major Eldar advantage seems weird.
The way you worded it makes "specialised" sound like an advantage - while in fact specialisation is a disadvantage, and a huge one too.
I've been saying this literally for years since the early 5th edition of the game: the fact that many Eldar units are "specialised" is a huge drawback and a primary factor that decisively hampers performance of Eldar armies. And the only real way to compensate that drawback is to keep units relatively cheap, so that a player can field enough "specialised" units to cover all bases while still having a little redundancy. So I'm absolutely happy to see that someone in GW design studio has finally taken a step in the right direction (even though it might be purely by accident).
This is just the thing that I desperately hoped GW would do with 6th edition codex. Good to see it finally done, after mere 5 years :D
-
I think this post can be closed, since the codex is out now. ;D
-
I think eldar brigades are going to be the way to go, as the units are so cheap, and then you can capitalize on command points.
As promising as all of this sounds in practice (still no notification that my Codex has shipped), this simply sounds wrong in principle. Eldar were always designed around the idea of being powerful and specialised, at the cost of being expensive and fragile. Having cheap units as a major Eldar advantage seems weird.
The way you worded it makes "specialised" sound like an advantage - while in fact specialisation is a disadvantage, and a huge one too.
I've been saying this literally for years since the early 5th edition of the game: the fact that many Eldar units are "specialised" is a huge drawback and a primary factor that decisively hampers performance of Eldar armies. And the only real way to compensate that drawback is to keep units relatively cheap, so that a player can field enough "specialised" units to cover all bases while still having a little redundancy. So I'm absolutely happy to see that someone in GW design studio has finally taken a step in the right direction (even though it might be purely by accident).
Hampers performance? From everything I've heard, Eldar remained a top tier army throughout my hiatus (from early 5th to 8th). It sounds as though during 7th they almost approached the absurdity of 2nd Ed.
Specialisation is absolutely a huge advantage the way 40k rules have always worked, which is probably why Eldar have been so consistently strong throughout the game's history. A point system inherently favours units that are most efficient for their points, and these are invariably the ones that do one specific thing very well. Other units pay for things they may not even use against certain targets - especially with 3rd Ed. onwards targeting rules that prevented units from splitting fire. You have entire squads paying for useless boltguns and the like.
Or look at Land Raiders, a unit that in its most basic form pays through the nose to be an armoured transport and not only has an anemic armament for its cost, it's armed with a heavy bolter and twin lascannon - a loadout that hasn't made any practical sense since 2nd Edition; they even had to give it Machine Spirit rules that let it split fire back in 3rd. It's no accident that GW added more specialised Land Raider variants, and that most of these outperform the traditional version.
More generalised Eldar units have frequently been the weakest in the army and the ones without a role. It certainly hasn't hurt that 40k is at heart a tactically very simple game without very many unit roles - there really aren't many bases to cover.
From my experience of 8th, this change was needed not because specialisation was an issue - although it's no longer that relevant in 8th since anything can kill anything else given enough firepower - but because Eldar fragility was. The army was designed in a context where units weren't routinely wiped out on turn 1. It doesn't matter how efficient the units or how strong their weapons if they only realistically get to use them if they go first.
-
I think this post can be closed, since the codex is out now. ;D
No need. It's general discussion now. However, since the Codex is out, no more spouting rules and/or points costs as if they were still rumours. Everyone knows the forum rules.
-
I've been saying this literally for years since the early 5th edition of the game: the fact that many Eldar units are "specialised" is a huge drawback and a primary factor that decisively hampers performance of Eldar armies.
I've been disagreeing with you for just as many years about this point, so let's add one more for the road ;).
Specialisation is one of the defining features of the Eldar and it neither needs to be addressed nor does it require the sort of reductions that you have previously advocated in cost to mitigate it. I have consistently found that specialisation is an advantage provided you get your unit selection, strategy, and tactics right. As for the idea that specialisation hampers performance, it only does so if you expect Eldar units to have the sort of flexibility offered by generalists that characterise many Imperial armies. Eldar do not play like this and if they are used in that way their performance will suffer. Play them the way they are supposed to be played and this isn't a problem. It has been that way since Rogue Trader.
-
@Rhyleth
Hampers performance? From everything I've heard, Eldar remained a top tier army throughout my hiatus (from early 5th to 8th). It sounds as though during 7th they almost approached the absurdity of 2nd Ed.
Specialisation is absolutely a huge advantage the way 40k rules have always worked, which is probably why Eldar have been so consistently strong throughout the game's history.
Disagree with both statements. But first let me emphasise one important thing: I'm looking at the game and army composition from the point of view of building so-called "all-comers" lists, because that's how you have to play in tournaments, and that's how most players I know of tend to build their collections. Tailoring a list for each specific opponent is not really an option for me or anyone I know - even if we disregard tournaments, still each time a person goes to a club for a few games, they can't really carry all of their units with them to create any list on the fly.
With that out of the way - firstly, specialisation is not an advantage at all for an all-comers list, for the reasons I'll explain below. And secondly, what you heard is partially wrong: Eldar have been totally weak throughout almost all of the 5th edition, down to the point of being practically unplayable in the end of 5th and in the beginning of 6th (before the 6th ed codex arrived).
But what's most important here for the topic in question is that at all times when Eldar were indeed performing really well, they owed their success almost exclusively to certain units/weapons that were both really strong (sometimes OP) AND absolutely not specialised, or at least about as far from being "specialised" as it ever gets. Namely:
3rd edition: Starcannons, Wraithlords, Seer Councils.
4th edition: Falcons and Harlequins.
5th edition: Seer Council (the only thing that made Eldar semi-playable on competitive level)
6th edition: Wave Serpents (due to OP rules for serpent shield), Wraithknights
7th edition: Scatter-bikes, Wraithknights
As you can see, all weapons and units in the list above have one thing in common: none of them was "specialised" because they all could handle an outstandingly wide variety of targets.
A point system inherently favours units that are most efficient for their points, and these are invariably the ones that do one specific thing very well. Other units pay for things they may not even use against certain targets - especially with 3rd Ed. onwards targeting rules that prevented units from splitting fire. You have entire squads paying for useless boltguns and the like.
This is a very abstract statement that doesn't take into account one important practical consideration: threat-management.
To put it simply, the role of a specialised unit and the kind of threat it poses is glaringly obvious to your opponent, making it super-easy for him to prioritise and decisively take out those elements of your force that are particularly threatening to him.
For example, an army of versatile units would be 5 SM Tactical squads with krak grenades and a meltagun in each one. The same thing but in "specialised" form would be an Eldar army of 4 squads of DAs (specialised anti-personnel) and 1 squad of 5 Fire Dragons (specialised anti-tank). The number of anti-tank guns in both forces is the same. Now tell me, against which of the two forces it would be easier to take out the AT section so that your vehicles would have pretty much free reign over the battlefield? I think the answer is obvious. But that's not all. Even if the Dragons do not get singled out and decisively destroyed in the first 1-2 turns, I'd argue that the SM force would still have comparatively easier time dealing with the enemy force that includes several vehicles, for that very reason: every SM squad has some AT capability, while Dragons are just one unit and they can't be in several places simultaneously, nor can they threaten more than 1 vehicle per turn.
Or look at Land Raiders, a unit that in its most basic form pays through the nose to be an armoured transport and not only has an anemic armament for its cost, it's armed with a heavy bolter and twin lascannon
From my perspective of a long-time tournament player, the only real problem of LR has always been the fact that LRs were way too easy to destroy for their huge point cost. E.g., by the end of 5th edition, when durability stopped being an issue for some time, there were several quite successful competitive SM builds featuring 2-3 LRs.
More generalised Eldar units have frequently been the weakest in the army and the ones without a role.
Not sure what specific units you're talking about. As I detailed above, the most decisively game-making Eldar units were always the most versatile ones.
It certainly hasn't hurt that 40k is at heart a tactically very simple game without very many unit roles - there really aren't many bases to cover.
As for bases to cover, they are not too numerous, but there still are a few:
- Anti-horde
- Anti-heavy infantry
- Anti-tank
- Anti-air (although this one has largely mingled with anti-tank in 8th)
- Objective control
Any experienced tournament player would tell you that the most valuable units are invariably those that can double-up in two or more different roles.
The army was designed in a context where units weren't routinely wiped out on turn 1. It doesn't matter how efficient the units or how strong their weapons if they only realistically get to use them if they go first.
Imho, the problem of an army taking some crippling damage on turn 1 just because it lost the first turn to the enemy has always been there. 8th edition mechanic has greatly emphasised it though.
Admittedly, fragility actually has a lot to do with the problem of specialisation. The fact that most Eldar units are fragile for their points makes it yet much easier for our opponents to destroy the key threats early on, rendering the rest of the army all but helpless. Yet I would insist that the root of the problem lies in the specialisation itself, not in the fragility. 40k is (and has always been) a game of crazy high damage output, and if your opponent really wants to destroy any one specific unit in your force, the unit will be destroyed. The only thing that helps counter this effect is target saturation - and that can only be achieved if all capabilities are spread out through your units as evenly as possible.
@Irisado
My arguments about the threat-management and target saturation above go to you as well :)
-
Yeah the specialization has been an enormous advantage for Eldar since 6th. The points (and delivery mechanisms, wave serpent, battle focus etc) were adjusted so that all the tools could be brought to an 1850pt game whereas in 5th that was not the case (IMO). The same transition has now been made with the codex for 8th.
Any areas where some redundancy may be needed (additional anti-tank for example) can be enhanced by wargear options on vehicles, or selection of psychic powers.
In 6th the points had been adjusted to do this and the delivery system the Wave Serpent ensured anything that couldn't deepstrike got exactly where it needed to go.
In 7th Eldar specialists became even better and utterly annihilated their chosen targets, but also had devastating versatility and thus became so hyper-efficient they dominated the game. With D-Scythes, Warp Spiders, Jetbikes, Hornets, Swooping Hawks etc. mowing down infantry, vehicles and even super heavies with equal ease. Hell even Swooping Hawks were wrecking vehicles 18" movement and strapping Haywires on to vehicles and flyers downing them with more ease than Fire Dragons. It was glorious, but absurd from a game balance point of view.
In 8th that versatility has been taken away due to the increased toughness of vehicle, and the classic challenge of creating a balanced list with built in redundancy. Whether its anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-character offensively or defensively finding resilience and finding deployment shenanigans, I've had no problem whatsoever in any of those departments in 6th, 7th, even with the Index and certainly now with the 8th ed codex.
-
I think I should jump in here and say that I mostly agree with SeekingOne.
However the specialization was a double edged sword before 8th ed, not only bad.
You could have units with great focus on their task performing them with extreme precision, however loosing even a single model in a unit was still painful before 8th ed, but it was a trade-off.
The thing with 8th ed, is that all armies have gotten that extreme precision due to split fire everywhere, this does indirectly hurt eldar to a very high degree.
Because 5 units of tactical marines can fire their missiles at a wave serpent and simultaneously fire their bolters at the guardians, this was THE devastating change in pace that came with 8th ed.
In addition to this, all weapon costs skyrocketed and this was especially bad for eldar, because there was no discount on having their specializations.
With the new codex thankfully most of these discounts have been applied, the weird thing is GW choose to put most of these discounts on the model rather than the weapons/gear.
-
And secondly, what you heard is partially wrong: Eldar have been totally weak throughout almost all of the 5th edition, down to the point of being practically unplayable in the end of 5th and in the beginning of 6th (before the 6th ed codex arrived).
Not in my experience. It depends on the environment in which you play, so you can't turn that statement into a universal claim. It is likely that Eldar strugged in fifth edition in the sort of tournaments in which you were playing, but outside of supposed 'top tier' tournaments, the problems were not really any more significant for Eldar than they were for other armies which couldn't amass enough long ranged anti-tank fire power. The problem here was not, therefore, one of Eldar specialisation, but of the overall durability of vehicles.
But what's most important here for the topic in question is that at all times when Eldar were indeed performing really well, they owed their success almost exclusively to certain units/weapons that were both really strong (sometimes OP) AND absolutely not specialised, or at least about as far from being "specialised" as it ever gets. Namely:
3rd edition: Starcannons, Wraithlords, Seer Councils.
4th edition: Falcons and Harlequins.
5th edition: Seer Council (the only thing that made Eldar semi-playable on competitive level)
6th edition: Wave Serpents (due to OP rules for serpent shield), Wraithknights
7th edition: Scatter-bikes, Wraithknights
As you can see, all weapons and units in the list above have one thing in common: none of them was "specialised" because they all could handle an outstandingly wide variety of targets.
You omit Rogue Trader and second edition from your list. This is a significant omission because, especially in second edition, Eldar had numerous specialised units which were all potential game winners. In addition, I contend that a number of the units and weapons that you list above were far from ubiquitous.
Let's take Starcannons as an example. They were more effective against a wider range of targets in third edition than has been the case since, but they were still at their best against elite armies. Against horde armies it wasn't the best option. It was designed and primarily functioned as an anti-MEQ weapon, and this is what it excelled at.
Wraithlords were only considered to be so effective in third edition because of their durability not for their damage output. In addition, their damage output was at its best when it was specialised, so they were either equipped for anti-tank duty or equipped for an anti-infantry/light vehicle role. This highlights how they needed to be specialised, in order to be sufficiently effective.
Harlequins and Falcons being combined broke every single piece of narrative and lore ever written, but in terms of actual effectiveness I remember discussing this in depth at the time, and it was open to question. Falcons themselves were only considered effective because of their durability, not because of their offensive output. As for the Harlequins, you are right that they were more of a generalist effective against all comers unit back then, but, and this is the crucial point for me, either Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshees, were more effective against horde or MEQ armies respectively. The result is that unless, like you, players were going to be up against a very wide range of diverse opposition, Harlequins were not the best choice. It was, and still is, even possible to have an idea of whether you'll primarily face MEQ or GEQ opposition at some tournaments, making opting for the specialised option perfectly viable.
Seer Councils were only ever selected because they could act as a tarpit. They were not chosen for being generalists, while the Wave Serpent shield is a one-off, situational, and not comparatively salient in my opinion. The Scatter Laser has always been one of the few Eldar weapons, along with the Shuriken Cannon, which has been designed as a multi-purpose weapon, so while we are in agreement here, it's not a valid comparison since these weapons were always meant to function in this way.
To put it simply, the role of a specialised unit and the kind of threat it poses is glaringly obvious to your opponent, making it super-easy for him to prioritise and decisively take out those elements of your force that are particularly threatening to him.
Not in my experience. Just because Eldar is a specialist army doesn't mean that there is no way to spread threats. The classic example is either taking two of the same unit, but there are other ways too. It's possible, for example, to spread anti-tank threats across an Eldar army through both long ranged and short ranged options. There are plenty of ways to achieve this and I'm more than happy to list specific examples if that would be useful, but as an experienced player yourself, you probably don't need me to do this.
For example, an army of versatile units would be 5 SM Tactical squads with krak grenades and a meltagun in each one. The same thing but in "specialised" form would be an Eldar army of 4 squads of DAs (specialised anti-personnel) and 1 squad of 5 Fire Dragons (specialised anti-tank). The number of anti-tank guns in both forces is the same. Now tell me, against which of the two forces it would be easier to take out the AT section so that your vehicles would have pretty much free reign over the battlefield? I think the answer is obvious. But that's not all. Even if the Dragons do not get singled out and decisively destroyed in the first 1-2 turns, I'd argue that the SM force would still have comparatively easier time dealing with the enemy force that includes several vehicles, for that very reason: every SM squad has some AT capability, while Dragons are just one unit and they can't be in several places simultaneously, nor can they threaten more than 1 vehicle per turn.
You're overlooking Storm Guardians with Fusion Guns, and/or a mix of a Fusion Gun and Flamer, which could be considered an approximate equivalent for Tactical Marines, or indeed Defender Guardians with an anti-tank weapon, such as a Brightlance. There also needs to be consideration given to transports. Most players are not going to field Fire Dragons on foot, for example, so if we put the Tactical Marines in Rhinos and the Eldar units in Wave Serpents, it changes the parameters further, as the Wave Serpent is superior to the Rhino.
I agree with you that Space Marines have an easier time in terms of having anti-tank capability across more units, at least in theory, but as I've presented to you in the example above, there are ways in which the Eldar can increase their anti-tank capability across the army, while retaining specialist units (e.g. Fire Dragons). This neatly ties into the point that I was hinting at above that while Eldar is an army of specialists, there are a few generalist options, both weapon options and Guardians, which can be converted into more generalist units. I prefer not to go down this route and to play more specialist units myself, but it's an approach that other Eldar players have taken successfully.
Specialisation is always going to be a key characteristic of the Eldar. For me, it's a core element of the army and it's one of the main reasons why I play the army. If I wanted an army of deadly dull generalists, I would play Marines. I love the diversity of Eldar units and that many of them are only effective against certain opponents. There is, however, flexibility in terms of Guardian units and transports, which can be equipped to function in more generalist roles, thus complementing the specialised Aspect Warriors.
-
Any one else notice the change to the scorpion claw? Enjoy until the FAQ hits :)
-
Not sure what is going to get FAQ'd, unless you mean the fact is does not have a negative modifier.... In which case I say good!
x2 on a Scorpion str is not the same as x2 on a SM str.
-
Not sure what is going to get FAQ'd, unless you mean the fact is does not have a negative modifier.... In which case I say good!
x2 on a Scorpion str is not the same as x2 on a SM str.
The claw has had a negative for a long time, its been one of the factors in deciding between biting blades or claws, now its a jsut a very miinor point difference. So I'm thinking its was a copy paste fail and will be corrected later on.
As for specalist vs generalist.. if it was a balanced system then it wouldn't make a lick of difference. The big thing though is Eldar used to be based on force multipliers, specalists that generally hit first in combat and had base weapons designed to punish horde armies (AP 5/6) but could still hurt everyone else.
Now, every army has force multipliers and since they put out more shots they can make better use of it, can hit us first in combat and they took away our ability to deal with horde troops. The point reduction is one way of trying to balance this out a bit, did it go far enough? Need a few games under the belt to see, but I don't think it did much against hordes.
Is it just me or would you have prefered to see webway strikes being a point costed thing rather than CP?
-
Not sure what is going to get FAQ'd, unless you mean the fact is does not have a negative modifier.... In which case I say good!
x2 on a Scorpion str is not the same as x2 on a SM str.
I don't have my Index handy, but didn't the Executioner also have the same modifier? It doesn't have one in the codex, either. Plus, it has a lower strength bonus than it did in the index. Again, don't have the index on hand, so this might be fuzzy memory. I agree that the claw not having the modified wouldn't surprise me. Its strength isn't actually all that impressive with the 8th ed wound chart.
Stats edited in accordance with forum rule 1 (http://www.40konline.com/index.php?action=rules) - Iris.
-
The claw has had a negative for a long time, its been one of the factors in deciding between biting blades or claws
I think only in the Index list for 8th Edition. It wasn't even a specialist weapon under 7th edition rules so you still got the benefit of using it with a pistol unlike some other power fist analogues (or power fists themselves for that matter).
-
Yep executioner dropped 1 point of strength, but is no longer a minus to hit.
-
Scorn is right - in fact, Scorpion's claw didn't have any penalties since the 6th edition codex.
-
@Rhyleth
Hampers performance? From everything I've heard, Eldar remained a top tier army throughout my hiatus (from early 5th to 8th). It sounds as though during 7th they almost approached the absurdity of 2nd Ed.
Specialisation is absolutely a huge advantage the way 40k rules have always worked, which is probably why Eldar have been so consistently strong throughout the game's history.
Disagree with both statements. But first let me emphasise one important thing: I'm looking at the game and army composition from the point of view of building so-called "all-comers" lists, because that's how you have to play in tournaments, and that's how most players I know of tend to build their collections. Tailoring a list for each specific opponent is not really an option for me or anyone I know - even if we disregard tournaments, still each time a person goes to a club for a few games, they can't really carry all of their units with them to create any list on the fly.
The way specialisation has always worked in 40k doesn't really affect this. Holding objectives has been a major part of the game since 3rd, and any successful army needs a mix of anti-infantry and anti-tank. The major advantage the Eldar have always had in this context is simply that they can concentrate more of each type for the points into dedicated units. The only downside is wasted points where this leads to overkill (10-man Dragon squads weren't of much use in older editions, for instance).
But what's most important here for the topic in question is that at all times when Eldar were indeed performing really well, they owed their success almost exclusively to certain units/weapons that were both really strong (sometimes OP) AND absolutely not specialised, or at least about as far from being "specialised" as it ever gets. Namely:
3rd edition: Starcannons, Wraithlords, Seer Councils.
4th edition: Falcons and Harlequins.
5th edition: Seer Council (the only thing that made Eldar semi-playable on competitive level)
6th edition: Wave Serpents (due to OP rules for serpent shield), Wraithknights
7th edition: Scatter-bikes, Wraithknights
I can't speak to 6th or 7th, and I think I may have quit before the 5th Ed. Eldar Codex, but the 3rd Ed. units you name are not 'unspecialised'. They're specifically anti-Marine and were as good as they were against all comers simply because 3rd was suffused with Marine equivalent armies (in this context the Eldar themselves qualify, as an infantry-based force with low numbers and high armour saves is exactly the army profile starcannons excelled against).
The Wraithlord was mostly a starcannon platform that happened to be unreasonably tough - it was all but worthless against horde armies, but those didn't really exist. Orks weren't competitive, Tyranids favoured Tyranid Warrior-and-Carnifex-heavy builds, Guard tended to be mechanised, Tau weren't yet a thing, and no one played Dark Eldar. The Wraithlord wasn't good against tanks either, but in the unlikely event it ever got into close combat with one it could at least do damage.
Seer Council rises and falls on the quality and type of psychic power available - as a combat unit its low damage output and few attacks makes it weak against hordes unless Destructor is good (which is what made it so good in 3rd).
As for 4th, I'm not sure what world exists in which Harlequins are not a specialised unit?
As you can see, all weapons and units in the list above have one thing in common: none of them was "specialised" because they all could handle an outstandingly wide variety of targets.
Hmm. Wraithlord can handle heavy infantry and is bad against everything else.
Harlequins are good mostly against Marine-type infantry and, while they'll massacre light infantry, so will any cc unit in the army - they're inefficiently-priced against any other target. Suggesting they aren't specialised on that basis is like suggesting Fire Dragons aren't specialised because fusion guns can melt Guardsmen. Sure they can do it, but they aren't the tool you want for that job.
Seer Council does little of anything without being able to concentrate magic flamers, which has always been a recipe for success (Exhibit A: 2nd Ed. Warp Spiders).
Scatter laser seems to have the same profile it's had since 3rd, which suggests to me it's mostly anti-horde with a sideline in light vehicles.
For example, an army of versatile units would be 5 SM Tactical squads with krak grenades and a meltagun in each one. The same thing but in "specialised" form would be an Eldar army of 4 squads of DAs (specialised anti-personnel) and 1 squad of 5 Fire Dragons (specialised anti-tank). The number of anti-tank guns in both forces is the same. Now tell me, against which of the two forces it would be easier to take out the AT section so that your vehicles would have pretty much free reign over the battlefield? I think the answer is obvious. But that's not all. Even if the Dragons do not get singled out and decisively destroyed in the first 1-2 turns, I'd argue that the SM force would still have comparatively easier time dealing with the enemy force that includes several vehicles, for that very reason: every SM squad has some AT capability, while Dragons are just one unit and they can't be in several places simultaneously, nor can they threaten more than 1 vehicle per turn.
Which is why you wouldn't build an Eldar army that way. It's absurd to argue that specialisation - the advantage of which is being able to concentrate more of weapon type X and at a more efficient rate - is a disadvantage using an example in which the specialised army doesn't use any more of those weapons than the generalised force, and in which relative costs of those options aren't accounted for.
An Eldar force would more likely take two Dragon squads and three DA squads in this context and have points left over. Moreover it would be sure to protect the Dragons in a transport that will in most cases take the fire of multiple Marine squads to destroy (tying up their AP fire in the process and so being unable to take out surviving passengers).
From my perspective of a long-time tournament player, the only real problem of LR has always been the fact that LRs were way too easy to destroy for their huge point cost. E.g., by the end of 5th edition, when durability stopped being an issue for some time, there were several quite successful competitive SM builds featuring 2-3 LRs.
And was the default build favoured or more specialised Raiders like the Crusader?
Not sure what specific units you're talking about. As I detailed above, the most decisively game-making Eldar units were always the most versatile ones.
With a definition of "versatile" that corresponds to "best against Marines", sure, but that's not what I'm meaning by versatile. I'm thinking in terms of units like Guardians that duplicate the weapon distribution of other armies' core units.
As for bases to cover, they are not too numerous, but there still are a few:
- Anti-horde
- Anti-heavy infantry
- Anti-tank
- Anti-air (although this one has largely mingled with anti-tank in 8th)
- Objective control
Any experienced tournament player would tell you that the most valuable units are invariably those that can double-up in two or more different roles.
There's no such thing outside FW as a dedicated anti-air unit so that can be written off as irrelevant for a start - any AT unit will be an AA unit by default (save in 8th, where any flamer unit is an AA unit by default, or any flier - which incidentally covers a lot of Eldar units with other roles). That really leaves three bases to cover with an entire army's worth of units - plenty to add redundancy.
Objective control is an incidental function of most Troops units - specialisation isn't what's kept 'objective control specialists' like Warp Spiders (which have utility against hordes and light vehicles, and are adequate against heavy infantry, and so by your lights are a fairly generalised unit) from seeing play.
It reads to me not that specialisation is the issue but that you simply aren't adding enough redundancy in terms of multiple units with a similar specialisation in your own builds.
Imho, the problem of an army taking some crippling damage on turn 1 just because it lost the first turn to the enemy has always been there. 8th edition mechanic has greatly emphasised it though.
It's always been there to an extent, but in past editions movement was shorter, fliers weren't a thing, and high damage output armies like Eldar were short-ranged. With fliers, superheavies, turn 1 deep strike, and armies that combine high damage output and long range like Ad Mech, it's more than "exacerbated" in 8th. The game's reached a point where the turn system is no longer a sustainable way to play and the rules really should be changed so that players alternate moving individual units (something long proposed but never as necessary as it appears to be now).
I agree that the change to the game structure has hurt Eldar in numerous ways. As well as the one you mentioned, the loss of the initiative stat means that Eldar close combat options will mostly be a thing of the past, and now that mass firepower can achieve most things and AT specialists lack the damage output (as in, the literal damage stat) to reliably one-shot vehicles even in units of 5+, things like Fire Dragons and cannon-armed Wraithguard become much less attractive.
-
So thankfully the new FAQ went in our favor.
Autarchs can take all of their old options and still benefit from the codex datasheets.
Similarly, the missing Exarch weapons get the same treatment. Sadly the Sunrifle is rapid fire.
-
So thankfully the new FAQ went in our favor.
Autarchs can take all of their old options and still benefit from the codex datasheets.
Similarly, the missing Exarch weapons get the same treatment. Sadly the Sunrifle is rapid fire.
True, although the Ynnari got kick in the teeth.
-
True, although the Ynnari got kick in the teeth.
A very welcome one too. Their bonus was just way too good to exist.
I don't think the change is ideal TBH. I mean, rules-wise it seems good, but fluff-wise it would've made much more sense if Strength from Death actions could be triggered only by the death of friendly Aeldari units.
-
but fluff-wise it would've made much more sense if Strength from Death actions could be triggered only by the death of friendly Aeldari units.
anything that dies can be used as fuel fluff wise so far... might even be able to do something with that corpse siting on the webway gate on earth lol.
True, although the Ynnari got kick in the teeth.
its still better than battle focus.... seems to be the worst race trait so far lol.
-
True, although the Ynnari got kick in the teeth.
A very welcome one too. Their bonus was just way too good to exist.
I don't think the change is ideal TBH. I mean, rules-wise it seems good, but fluff-wise it would've made much more sense if Strength from Death actions could be triggered only by the death of friendly Aeldari units.
Welcome but in my opinion too far, I can understand the not repeating soulbursts and the not soulbursting in opponents turn but both added together really is a big kick in the teeth.
With what the Ynarri lose by not having craftworld traits etc I don't expect to see many Ynarri armies around anymore.
-
If Ynnari can still use Eldar stratagems which a lot of people suggest they can, I stills see them as being very, very strong. Just say Ynnari never came out and Strength from Death was revealed for the first time as a Craftworld trait I think people would be going crazy for it. Its NOTHING like it was, but still very strong.
I think a carefully selected detachment with units that can take advantage of each phase of the game will be extremely strong. It might not be Alaitoc level, I'd say its right on its heels... especially with access to the Eldar psychic powers. Double casting psychic powers with Warlocks is freaking awesome, double fighting with Howling Banshees is awesome, double shooting with Wraithguard is STILL awesome, potential 3x movement with Shining Spears is insane (normal move, quicken, soulburst spell). You will really need to be on your game and think about model placement but if you can master it... I think Ynnari IF they can use Eldar stratagems can compete for the strongest overall build, but might be the hardest to play.
-
If Ynnari can still use Eldar stratagems which a lot of people suggest they can
They can, as long as they still have the Asuyrian keyword. You just need a craftworlds detachment in your army to unlock the strategems. Same thing with folks using Chaos Marine psychic powers and strategems on death guard. As long as the unit has the right keywords, you're good to go.
As it is though, competitively, Ynnari is not going to be seen anymore. No reason to give up craftworld traits for Strength from Death (as it is now). Strength from Death is far to limited. Too be honest, I never really liked the ability, it was crazy strong, but this errata was too heavy handed. They should have just prevented activations in your opponents turn.
-
If Ynnari can still use Eldar stratagems which a lot of people suggest they can
What Killersquid said above. They can use most of them except those few that specifically affect <Craftworld> units. And in order to do this an army has to include a CWE detachment, meaning that a considerable part of the force won't be Ynnari.
Its NOTHING like it was, but still very strong.
It doesn't seem worthless indeed. It's still stronger than Saim-Hann or Biel-Tan attributes, lol
I think a carefully selected detachment with units that can take advantage of each phase of the game will be extremely strong. It might not be Alaitoc level, I'd say its right on its heels... especially with access to the Eldar psychic powers. Double casting psychic powers with Warlocks is freaking awesome, double fighting with Howling Banshees is awesome, double shooting with Wraithguard is STILL awesome, potential 3x movement with Shining Spears is insane (normal move, quicken, soulburst spell). You will really need to be on your game and think about model placement but if you can master it... I think Ynnari IF they can use Eldar stratagems can compete for the strongest overall build, but might be the hardest to play.
Exactly this. Trick is that now the SfD rule promotes very flexible multi-purpose army builds. Sure, you can't have an extra volley with several squads any longer, but you can still have an extra volley plus an extra round of melee attacks plus an extra Smite, all in one turn. It's actually still strong, but it requires you to play tactically to have the right units in the right places.
As it is though, competitively, Ynnari is not going to be seen anymore. No reason to give up craftworld traits for Strength from Death (as it is now). Strength from Death is far to limited.
Well, Alaitoc maybe cheesier, but that's about it. And mark my words, now that Ynnari are toned down, Alaitoc attribute is the next closest candidate for nerf-batting.
-
Alatioc Isn't too bad. Chaos, Space Marines, and Admech have units with the exact same ability, and no one has been worried about it yet.
Also, it's the only craftworld trait that your opponent can completely negate (by moving to within 12"). A bunch of armies just don't care about -1 to hit. Horde Orks (Which I think is hugely underrated now that stormravens are gone from the meta), will absolutely stomp Alatioc. The new Tyranids stuff is super scary, and they don't care either.
Smite spam chaos doesn't care either.
It is however really good against armies currently doing well competitively. Rowboat Girlyman gunlines, and guard gunlines.
-
Ynnari just got killed in competitive environments, still it opened up this guy:
Autarch skyrunner 108p
-Banshee mask, 2x Avenger shuriken catapults, twin shuriken catapults, blazing star of vaul.
10 shots hitting 35/36 of them. :D
This guy should give Maugan Ra a run for it in a shooting contest.
-
Ynnari just got killed in competitive environments, still it opened up this guy:
Autarch skyrunner 108p
-Banshee mask, 2x Avenger shuriken catapults, twin shuriken catapults, blazing star of vaul.
10 shots hitting 35/36 of them. :D
This guy should give Maugan Ra a run for it in a shooting contest.
The Autarch doesn't have a Shuriken Pistol, or Catapult, so can't get the Blazing Star.
Even if he could, 4 S4 shots at 18", and 6 more at 12 isn't that good. Even with BS 2+. Maugan Ra won't be charged and killed immediatly after he shoots.
-
Ynnari just got killed in competitive environments, still it opened up this guy:
Autarch skyrunner 108p
-Banshee mask, 2x Avenger shuriken catapults, twin shuriken catapults, blazing star of vaul.
10 shots hitting 35/36 of them. :D
This guy should give Maugan Ra a run for it in a shooting contest.
The Autarch doesn't have a Shuriken Pistol, or Catapult, so can't get the Blazing Star.
Even if he could, 4 S4 shots at 18", and 6 more at 12 isn't that good. Even with BS 2+. Maugan Ra won't be charged and killed immediatly after he shoots.
In the FAQ, they changed it so Blazing Star of Vaul applies to Twin Shuriken Catapults now, so Skyrunner characters like the Autarch Skyrunner or Warlock Skyrunner can take it.
-
Ynnari just got killed in competitive environments, still it opened up this guy:
Autarch skyrunner 108p
-Banshee mask, 2x Avenger shuriken catapults, twin shuriken catapults, blazing star of vaul.
10 shots hitting 35/36 of them. :D
This guy should give Maugan Ra a run for it in a shooting contest.
Don't forget your force shield.
-
Autarch can stick the blazing star of vaul onto an avenger catapult, I think. Jetarchs still have peerless agility so no need or a forceshield. Weird yes, but I'm fairly sure this was the intension, as I don't beleive it was overlooked due to the footarch and the wingarch got separate FAQ entries.
-
Oh you're right. I totally missed that Peerless Agility wasn't the same as the Shining Spears ability.
-
I think. Jetarchs still have peerless agility so no need or a forceshield. Weird yes, but I'm fairly sure this was the intension, as I don't beleive it was overlooked due to the footarch and the wingarch got separate FAQ entries.
I think GW is trying to be 100% true to WYSIWYG. The standard GW model for bike Autarch actually doesn't have the forceshield attached to his left arm, hence the rule.
Speaking of which, does anyone understand where that "starglaive" thing come from? Is it supposed to support a case when the model of Yriel is used as a generic foot Autarch? Because, AFAIK, he's technically the only foot Autarch that they are producing now.