40K Online

Main => The Forge => Topic started by: Splog on September 9, 2011, 06:55:26 PM

Title: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Splog on September 9, 2011, 06:55:26 PM
Another attempt to revamp and update the Eldar codex with updated and new units.

I've been fleshing out a couple of ideas for a while now, and wanted to share them. I'll post a couple of the ideas here, and hopefully improve them from feedback received and spark some ideas for others.

At the high level, the changes that I'd like to see in the codex is an emphasis on the three strands of the Eldar forces as an echo to the Kabal, Wych, and Homunculi strands for the Dark Eldar. For the craftworlders these strands would be: Professional Military (Aspects), Citizen Militia (guardians, and guardian crewed warmachines), and auxiliaries (peripheral forces; outcasts, corsairs, harlequins). Also, all non apocalypse sized units from FW moved into the codex.

The Grey Knight codex has introduced bonuses based on the form of close combat weapon being used. +1 to invulnerable saves from swords, +2 initiative from polearms. I'm against this change, particularly gaining a whole 2 points of initiative from a polearm, but pandora's box is already open. Will this go away? Will it only apply to Grey Knights? Will these bonuses start to apply across all forces? I've not specifically included these changes here, but I have kept in mind that they could apply.

Anyway... onwards.

Wraith constructs
Wraith units are immune to the effect of grenades used by enemy models; do not apply their effects. This means that assault grenades to not negate the effect of the wraith unit being in cover, all attacks are retained despite the use of defensive grenades, and so on. For the sake of simplicity this benefit is conferred on warlocks leading a unit of wraithguard, and any ICs that join a wraithguard squad.

Note 1:  I'm considering that wraith units should get the 'War Construct' rule that the FW tomb spider has where sniper and poisoned weapons require a 6 to wound a model with the rule, and that War Constructs get the grenade immunity rule given above. This ideally would be a new USR that some units, e.g. Terminators, also get.

Close Combat Wraithguard 'Wraithwardens'
Any unit of Wraithguard may swap their wraithcannon for an Aether Spear. An Aether Spear is a close combat weapon that always wounds on a 2+ and ignores armour saves. On a to-wound roll of a 6 the Aether Spear inflicts instant death. Against vehicles an Aether Spear always inflicts a glancing hit on a 3-4, and a penetrating hit on a 5-6.

Same points as regular Wraithguard.

Notes: This is a very tough close combat unit that has a powerful bite. The Aether Spear is a wraithcannon in the form of a close combat weapon, and has the same killing potential per attack. Pros: Can hurt anything in close combat. Difficult to kill in close combat apart from with powerfists and by MCs/Dreadnoughts, but the Wardens are very effective against small units and single models. Can be WS5 and I5 with Enhance. Cons: Expensive. Slow; no fleet or available assault transports. Transported units are small. Low number of attacks (2 on the charge), so can get bogged down by large and cheap units. No ranged weapons.

Having a wraithguard variant might increase the chance of getting a plastic kit; if more than one unit type can be built with the same kit then they would potentially sell more.

Farseers

Intent: To improve the Farseer's psychic performance a little, whilst maintaining an eldar feel.

All Farseer psychic powers have an active mode and a passive mode. Their active mode works as per the current rules. The passive mode is an always on psychic effect which does not require a psychic test, so works in the same way as Warlock powers.

Passive modes

Guide - the Farseer can reroll shooting attacks.

Fortune - the Farseer can reroll all saves.

Doom - the Farseer can reroll all to-wound rolls

Eldritch Storm - all enemy deepstrikes that land within 12" of the Farseer result in an automatic roll on the deepstrike mishap table (e.g. like warp quake)

Eldritch Storm Active Mode addition: The player may opt to make a template attack instead. This attack uses the same profile and effects.

Mind War - When an enemy psyker uses a psychic power within 12" of the Farseer, both players roll 1D6 and add the leadership of their respective models. If the Farseer scores higher, then the psychic power is nullified. Additionally, all knowledge about the psychic ability is lost, the model (or unit) may no longer use that psychic power for the rest of the game. Potential Alternative - counts as having psykout grenades.

Mind War - The farseer counts as having psychotroke grenades.

Strands of Fate: Once per player turn, while the Farseer is alive the owning player may elect to add or subtract 1 to a single dice roll after it has been made.

Notes: The passive modes for the Farseer are supposed to represent relatively minor/local/self-focussed psychic abilities. The Strands of Fate seems like an ability that is in keeping with the flavour of Eldar Farseers and is partly inspired from reading Path of the Seer. But applying this ability along with the passive modes given above to a model kept at the same, or roughly the same, points cost is probably too much.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Shas'La robo on September 11, 2011, 02:44:21 AM
Quote
Additionally, all knowledge about the psychic ability is lost, the model (or unit) may no longer use that psychic power for the rest of the game.
Don't you think that's a bit tight??

robo
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Guildmage Aech on September 11, 2011, 04:31:42 PM
Quote from: Splog on September  9, 2011, 06:55:26 PM
Mind War - When an enemy psyker uses a psychic power within 12" of the Farseer, both players roll 1D6 and add the leadership of their respective models. If the Farseer scores higher, then the psychic power is nullified. Additionally, all knowledge about the psychic ability is lost, the model (or unit) may no longer use that psychic power for the rest of the game.

So despite the fact Eldar have the best anti-psychic ability in the whole of 40K you want it to be even better?

I'm not convinced that these rules are fair and balanced additions to gameplay.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Splog on September 11, 2011, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: Hymirl on September 11, 2011, 04:31:42 PM
So despite the fact Eldar have the best anti-psychic ability in the whole of 40K you want it to be even better?

I'm not convinced that these rules are fair and balanced additions to gameplay.

You don't think any of them are fair, or just the Mind War suggestion? Or all of the psychic power suggestions in general?

I'll have a think. I like the idea, so perhaps it could be salvaged by reducing the chance of it being successful and/or reducing the bubble of effect. Or see if I can come up with something completely different (passive mode: equivalent to psykout grenades?). Mind War seems to be generally one of the less taken powers, it could definitely do with some form of sprucing up.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Katamari Damacy on September 11, 2011, 05:46:26 PM
I like your ideas for the Aether Spears! I would like to try them, i think they could be really a nice addition to the whole wraith thing, especially in mixed squads. The ideas for negating grenades is nice thought as well. Damn those GK 'nades!  ;)
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Splog on September 14, 2011, 02:24:23 PM
Jumping around a bit here...

Aspect Warriors

Intent: To make all Aspect squads a viable and competitive choice. To make Exarch's more unique in terms of their equipment (avoiding the commonish-item-upgrade like a bog standard power sword), and to remove squad-effecting powers from Exarchs. In this revamp Exarch powers relate only to the Exarch. This has meant that some Exarch powers, particularly for the Striking Scorpions, have been transferred to being a squad level ability. Exarch powers are based on the accumulated skill of the Exarch (also reflected in the stat line), and psychic manifestations of their soul pool aspected to their role in relation to Khaine. Ideally this will also mean that Exarch powers and the Avatar are tied together, which hopefully I can orchestrate when I tackle the Avatar. Exarch ability changes will also have a knock on effect on their respective Phoenix Lords.

I have also aimed to create a more Craftworld Eldar / Eldar orientated armoury, which means dropping or modifying some 'pan-species' weapons.

Aspect Warriors
All Aspect Warriors have the Acute Senses USR.

Exarch's may select up to two Exarch powers.

The abilities mentioned for each Aspect entry (e.g. tank hunters for Fire Dragons) are included in the price.

Fire Dragons

18 points each
3+ Armour Save
Tank Hunters USR

Fusion Guns are replaced with the Dark Eldar Heat Lance.
Melta bombs are replaced with haywire grenades.

Exarch

(points for options undecided)

Weapon Options

Fire Pike (Str 8 Heat Lance)

Twin Inferno Pistols - The Exarch is an adept with dual wielding inferno pistols. The Exarch counts as being equipped with an Assault 2 Inferno Pistol, and as being equipped with two close combat weapons.

Flame Staff - Can be fired as a heat lance or as a heavy flamer.

Dragon Armature - the Exarch is enshrined into an armature of spines and flame projection units. The Exarch gains a 2+ armour save. Additionally the Exarch and counts as being equipped with a flamer, and with a power weapon that gives +1 S and a bonus D6 for armour penetration. Being revised



Exarch Powers

Feel No Pain - the Exarch is hardened to physical injury to an exceptional level and has the Feel No Pain USR.

Fire Proof - the Exarch's armour smoulders and is wreathed in a sullen glow, a manifestation of the fires of Khaine. The Exarch is immune to weapons with the flame, melta, and plasma weapons.

Annihilate - the strength of all of the Exarch's shooting attacks are doubled (maximum S10) count as S10 for the purposes of Instant Death.

Notes: The change of weaponry is to make the unit more Eldary. Using the heat lance provides a ready made and appropriate weapon, and demonstrates some of the shared technology and heritage with the DE. Against vehicles the Heat Lance is a step back, but not a large one. A squad of fire dragons should still be extremely threatening to any vehicle. Also the heat lance removes the ability to ID T4 targets, but does extend the range of Fire Dragons by 50% which is handy and expands their utility. Tank Hunters might be a bit much as a standard option, so I'm not 100% on it. Annihilate alleviates the loss of ID against T4, but might be a bit much when coupled with the possibility of the Exarch using a Flamer. The other Exarch powers echo Feugan and the Avatar.

Striking Scorpions

18 points.
Gain: Move through cover, and Infiltrate

Exarch

Same weapon options.

Warrior Powers

Scorpions Sting - the Exarch's attacks in close combat gain +1 S. This bonus is applied after all over bonuses (e.g. after the Scorpions Claw / Biting Blade).

Onslaught - for every to-wound roll of a 6 the Exarch generates a bonus attack.

The Clattering Rush - the Exarch has brutal assault (+2 A on the charge).


Howling Banshees

18 points
Gain: War Shout, and Shrieking Assault (needs a better name)

Shrieking Assault - Howling Banshees may assault from a transport as though it were an assault vehicle

Exarch

Weapon options remain the same.

Warrior Powers:

Dodge - the Exarch has a 4+ invulnerable save in close combat

Darting Strike Acrobatic - after pile-in moves are made the Exarch may be moved to any place in the combat where there is room to place the model (the Exarch must be in base to base contact with another model involved in the combat).

Finesse Strike - in close combat the invulnerable saving throws of the enemy are reduced by 1 for wounds caused by the Exarch.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Natinator on September 15, 2011, 09:09:10 AM
Im going to mainly look at the Aspect Warriors here.
 
I don't agree with all the changes to powers, but its up to you. Acrobatic is good as it already is, I certainly enjoy using it, so Im not sure about that change definitely. 18pts for the aspects... unless they get the aspect powers for free with that, its a bit too expensive.

Exarchs - seem cool, I like the ideas, but would cost a hell of alot. And since we don't have a way of regrouping like the Marines with their "they shall know no fear" rule, it is quite easy to lose them IMHO, since they are LD9. Maybe make Exarchs LD10?
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Lachdonin on September 15, 2011, 09:31:50 AM
I'm going to pick appart the Fire Dragons specificly...

Heat Lances? Really? As it is, the Dragons consistantly kill every tank, dreadnaught or MC they turn their attention to. What could possibly be the arguement of giving them even heavier firepower? Especially since the weapon in question isn't in my oppinion, better than a Fusion Gun. Sure, longer range, whoop-de-do. I'll take S8 over an extra 6" range anyday.

The new Exarch Wargear does two things. One, the Armature, seems like its only there to make the Exarch into a Phoenix Lord. 2+ save, +1S PW, and the Flamer all in one package just glows special character...

Second, the pistols offer, IMO, a sub-par alternative to the Dragons Breath Flamer, while at the same time encouraging the Dragons to be in CC, which i don't think is appropriate for them at all. Most people around here dissagree with me, but i firmly beleive that if your Dragons have gotten into CC with anything other than a tank, something has gone seriously wrong.

The powers... Again, this all just seems like an attempt to create a Phoenix Lord. FNP is over the top, we've tried it in the Redux. Annihilate, since it only applies to Instant Death, does nothing against the Dragons chosen target (Tanks and armoured vehicles) and Fire Proof is even better than what the Avatar has.

I like the idea of having 3 powers and only being able to take 2, but these powers are, IMO way too powerful for a squad-upgrade type character. Generally i think the design behind Exarch powers should be 2 powers that benefit the Exarch, and a power that benefits the squad. That way you can build a hard mini-character, or a supporting squad leader out of your Exarch.

Anyway, only other thing is Shrieking Assault... Lots of people want this. Personally, i have never had a problem with the current transport rules. We really don't need assaulting from vehicles, least of all from the Girls. They do their job admirably as it is.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Splog on September 15, 2011, 04:15:59 PM
Quote from: Natinator on September 15, 2011, 09:09:10 AM
I don't agree with all the changes to powers, but its up to you. Acrobatic is good as it already is, I certainly enjoy using it, so Im not sure about that change definitely. 18pts for the aspects... unless they get the aspect powers for free with that, its a bit too expensive.

Yes, the 'Aspect Powers' are supposed to be squad level abilities that come built in to the price.

Acrobatic - Currently counts as counter attack. As an Exarch power (according to the scheme I'm using) it would only effect the Exarch, not the squad. Under that constraint are you in favour of keeping it as it is, changing it, or adding/substituting it as a squad ability (or some other option)? I like counter attack, but War Shout and Shrieking Assault fit better with what I see as the Howling Banshee's role as a shock assault troops, emphasising the attack rather than the defence. Though arguably counter assault is quite attacky as the name implies.

Quote
Exarchs - seem cool, I like the ideas, but would cost a hell of alot. And since we don't have a way of regrouping like the Marines with their "they shall know no fear" rule, it is quite easy to lose them IMHO, since they are LD9. Maybe make Exarchs LD10?

LD9 is pretty high already, but I'm open to persuasion!

Quote from: Lachdonin
Heat Lances? Really? As it is, the Dragons consistantly kill every tank, dreadnaught or MC they turn their attention to. What could possibly be the arguement of giving them even heavier firepower? Especially since the weapon in question isn't in my oppinion, better than a Fusion Gun. Sure, longer range, whoop-de-do. I'll take S8 over an extra 6" range anyday.

Not quite sure what you mean here; you say the Heat Lance gives them heavier firepower but the Fusion Gun is better?

My reasons for the change: 1) More Eldary armoury, moving away sharing weapons with other races, 2) The increased range makes them less of a suicide unit, and better able to engage without being dropped off by a tank

Reasons against: 1) Less potent against vehicles and high toughness targets, but I think they're still good enough to get the job done in most cases, 2) Lose ID against T4.

I'm not trying to make everything in the Codex better, rather trying to make everything competitive and worthwhile.

Quote
The new Exarch Wargear does two things. One, the Armature, seems like its only there to make the Exarch into a Phoenix Lord. 2+ save, +1S PW, and the Flamer all in one package just glows special character...

Good points. A 2+ save and Feel No Pain on a squad leader is a bit over the top as well. I do like the idea/imagery of it though, so back to the drawing board to come up with something better.

Quote
Second, the pistols offer, IMO, a sub-par alternative to the Dragons Breath Flamer, while at the same time encouraging the Dragons to be in CC, which i don't think is appropriate for them at all. Most people around here dissagree with me, but i firmly beleive that if your Dragons have gotten into CC with anything other than a tank, something has gone seriously wrong.

Ah, but a gunslinger Fire Dragon Exarch... just imagine the artwork :-)

To me the Dragons Breath Flamer has to go, or needs to be radically changed. One of the constraints / design principles I'm working to here is that Exarch special equipment are ancient and exotic artefacts. A pretty Heavy Flamer feels a bit too Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS). I also object to the flamer weapon, because it does not at all seem in keeping with the Fire Dragon's role. Yes, I'm aware of the contradiction there with the proposed Armature, but that was in the "too cool to care" category. Now, it is no longer on the table.

I agree re FDs and Close Combat. The Burning Fist exarch power always seemed out of place. Having the Inferno Pistols provides S8 attacks for extra penetration up close / the ability to ID T4 targets. I'm not sure they would encourage people to get the unit into CC.

Quote
The powers... Again, this all just seems like an attempt to create a Phoenix Lord. FNP is over the top, we've tried it in the Redux. Annihilate, since it only applies to Instant Death, does nothing against the Dragons chosen target (Tanks and armoured vehicles) and Fire Proof is even better than what the Avatar has.

Redux - heard it mentioned, never seen it. Can you provide a link please?

FNP - I'm not sure why having FNP is over the top, particularly on a T3 squad sergeant, in an army that the only other way it can get FNP is on a special character. Inspiration comes from Fuegan; here Exarchs can pick up to two powers for their Aspect, and Phoenix Lords get all 3.

Fire Proof - this is intended to match what the Avatar has. So in the Splogdex the Avatar is also immune to Plasma. If that doesn't make the cut, then however the ability turns out it'll be shared by the Avatar and FD Exarch.

Annihilate - Good point well made, though earlier you mentioned MCs as a target for FDs so this would benefit against T5 MCs. Anyway, that quibble aside I think you have swayed me. Do you have any suggestions as to what could replace it?



Thanks for all of the feedback!
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Lachdonin on September 15, 2011, 07:52:23 PM
Alot of people seem to think that the Heat Lance is a 'heavier' weapon than the Fusion Gun, but i personally beleive the latter to be superior one. Sorry about that, i should have been a little more consise in the usage. That said, while the stats of a Fusion Gun and a Melta Gun may be the same, they are themselves unique weapons. Asside from Rapid Fire/Assault 2, Shuriken Catapults and Bolters are the same, should we be equiping our Guardians with something different too?

As for the Pistols... The flamer is actualy kind of characterful, being Dragons and all. The CC point regarding the pistols was having them count as an aditional Close Combat Weapon. Combined with a power like Anihilate, that really boosts the effecivness of the unit in combat.

For Fire Proof, i'd make it more of a toned down version of what the Avatar gets, since he is a living, walking inferno and all. Maybe just immune to flame weapons.

As for replacing Annihilate... If you keep Fire Proof, thats one power that supports the Exarch. If you put Crackshot back in to replace Feel No Pain, then you have 2 powers supporting the Exarch. Which means, if you go by the basis i said earlier, the third power should somehow benefit the squad.

Since you already gave them Tank Hunters as standard (Something i actually agree with. I think each Aspect Warrior squad diserves a special rule which fits into their role) maybe something that protects them from the contents of a freshly distroyed tank? No clue what to call it, but what about a power that allows the Dragons to take a leadership check if they destroy a vehicle. If they pass, they emediately fall back as per normal, but regroup at the beginning of the next Eldar turn. This gets them out of easy assault range of anyone who happens to be lurking in a freshly scrapped transport.




As for the Redux, once you have 100 posts you can access the Projects board. We've been working on a redux of the Eldar codex for about 3 years now, and have learned alot along the way about what goes into designing a Codex, and how playtesting affects things. I must say, from my own experiences, i will not be so quick to make a blanket "This wasn't playtested" comment about a new Codex again... Its hard frigging work.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Splog on September 18, 2011, 05:03:52 AM
Quote from: Lachdonin on September 15, 2011, 07:52:23 PM
Alot of people seem to think that the Heat Lance is a 'heavier' weapon than the Fusion Gun, but i personally beleive the latter to be superior one. Sorry about that, i should have been a little more consise in the usage. That said, while the stats of a Fusion Gun and a Melta Gun may be the same, they are themselves unique weapons. Asside from Rapid Fire/Assault 2, Shuriken Catapults and Bolters are the same, should we be equiping our Guardians with something different too?

Fusion Gun / Melta Gun: A rose by any other name is still a rose.. etc.

Bolters / Shuriken Catapults: That bolters can fire at 24" is quite a large aside, but more on that later..


Quote
Since you already gave them Tank Hunters as standard (Something i actually agree with. I think each Aspect Warrior squad diserves a special rule which fits into their role) maybe something that protects them from the contents of a freshly distroyed tank? No clue what to call it, but what about a power that allows the Dragons to take a leadership check if they destroy a vehicle. If they pass, they emediately fall back as per normal, but regroup at the beginning of the next Eldar turn. This gets them out of easy assault range of anyone who happens to be lurking in a freshly scrapped transport.

An interesting idea. I was thinking of something along similar lines to make Fire Dragons more resistant to exploding vehicles (with vehicles they caused to explode in mind). Though in this case giving them a 3+ save alleviates that somewhat.


Quote
As for the Redux, once you have 100 posts you can access the Projects board.

Interesting. I'm not going to try and churn out a bunch of posts just to hit that target though.

Thank you for your feedback. I'm going to give the Dragon Armature weapon and Annihilate power a complete rethink and replace them with something else. I'm also pondering toning down Fire Proof.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Splog on September 18, 2011, 05:32:42 AM
Armoury Changes

WeaponRange S AP Notes
Shuriken Catapult 18"45Assault 2
Starcannon36"61Heavy 2, Ignores Cover
Eldar Missile Launcher
Haywire
48"--Roll 1d6 against targets with AV. 2-5 glancing, 6 penetrating
Plasma
48"44Heavy 1, Blast, Pinning

Shuriken Catapult - Range increased to 18". This is my proposed solution to the 'shuriken catapult problem'. This effects multiple units, and helps Guardians a fair bit. Some re-costing might be needed. By relation this diminishes the Dire Avengers a bit, but I'm proposing that their Shuriken Catapults count as twin linked. Currently 10 DAs will get 0-20 shooting hits, with an 'expected' 13 hits. With twin linked this rises to 18 expected hits.

EML - As with the Fire Dragon's weapon change this change is partly driven by trying to make Eldar ranged weaponry more unique, and not shared with other races. Frag rounds have already been replaced with Plasma as the Eldar equivalent. This change replaced Krak rounds with the Eldar equivalent tank-busting grenade - Haywire. This makes the EML good at suppressing vehicles, and a good choice to suppress AV14. This change makes it better against heavy vehicles. Worse against light vehicles. And of course worse against heavy infantry and MCs. Not sure as to points cost, some play testing needed.

Starcannon - at the current points cost the Starcannon isn't used much so something needs to change. The prime alternative candidate is to make it the same as the DE disintegrator, but I'm in favour of having the set of S6 Eldar heavy weapons. So, this proposed alternative. It could also become a blast weapon. Proposed change: AP1, Ignores Cover. AP1 makes it more damaging to light/medium vehicles if it glances/penetrates. Ignoring cover improves it as an option for use against heavy infantry / MCs. This also keeps it distinct from the Imperium Plasma Cannon, whilst improving the current weapon.

Brightlance - I can't see this one changing too much, particularly with the recent(ish) release of the DE codex that retained the same stat-line for the Dark Lance. Maybe a smallish points jig.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Farceseer Syranaul on September 18, 2011, 10:18:25 AM
I've tested the starcannon out with just a strength 7, and find it to be an amazing weapon again.  The versatility against transports, monstrous creatures, and deathstar units makes this weapon golden again.  I never thought of AP1 for it, though.

Bright lance with AP1 was considered, and tested a little, but the initial impression to some players thought it was too much.  To me that was a kneejerk reaction to fear.  So know we are testing it at the Codex stats, but at 20 points.  So far its good.  Needs more testing, but good.

That is the Eldar Missile Launcher that I came up with a few years ago.  I would very much like to see it in the next Codex.  It would certainly make the bright lance shine on its own once again.

Shuriken cannons with S:5  AP4 at 5 points for everything barring twin-linked mounts would help distinguish it from the scatter laser.  Currently, I am also testing it as a defensive weapon for vehicles.

Shuriken catapults are kind of tricky.  I'd prefer 18" range but and rapid fire but also counts as Relentless when fired.  Other ideas that I had are: Assault 1/Heavy 2.  Assault 1/ Sustained Fire 2.  Sustained Fire would allow them to fire as assault 2, but only if they didn't move during the movement phase.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Splog on September 19, 2011, 05:31:05 PM
Changes to Codex layout and organisation

- The reference page to be on the inside back page, or better yet on the outside back cover of the codex
- No more 'see page X' for equipment rules. Have an armoury section. List all the rules so that they're in one place. And yes, duplicate the rules for the unit description pages (where applicable) so that they can be seen context as one reads through. Use some Word Processor Fu to automagically reference the same content in more than one location. No more configuration control problems for GW, no more flipping back and forth and annoyances for players.
- More background material and pretty artwork.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Dread on September 19, 2011, 06:03:30 PM
Love the shrieking assult idea the most. I love to field my Banshees!
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Splog on April 8, 2012, 07:26:06 AM
(Long departure, a few tweaks and updates have been made)

Aspect Warriors part 2

Note that this tries to keep harmonised point cost tiers for Aspect warriors, so they're 12/18/24/30 points.

Dire Avengers

12 points.

Under proposed armoury changes the Shuriken Catapult is now has an 18" range. The Dire Avengers enjoy a twin-linked version. This makes them better than their current baseline, but diminishes their peak performance (Guide won't work on them, and here they're losing Bladestorm).

Exarch

Same weapons.

Defend - Same as now

Battlefate (4+ invulnerable save) to align potential with the Phoenix Lord.

? Singular Purpose - In close combat the Exarch can designate a single enemy model. All of the Exarch's attacks are against this model.

Warp Spiders

24 points (undercosted?)

Aggressive Defence - A Warp Spider unit may deepstrike on the first turn.

The Warp Jump Generator allows 12" jump movement in the movement phase, and may make a 6" jump move in the assault phase as per jet packs.

Deathspinner

WeaponRange S AP Notes
Deathspinner Template6-Monofilament

Monofilament - When a unit is hit, the next time they try to move they count as being in difficult and dangerous terrain.

Note - This weapon change ties them in to the Doomweaver, and makes them more distinct role and niche (as well as reverting them somewhat back towards their original form). As a monofilament weapon it should have rending, but that seemed a bit too much in a 24 point package.

Exarch

Weapons

Spinneret Rifle - As now, plus has rending.

Dual Spinners - Count as twin linked, plus has rending.

Spider Arms? - Gains +2 A and rending (basically a powerblade swap for Harlequin's kisses)

Powers

Surprise Assault - Counts as having plasma grenades.

Skitterleap - 5++ invulnerable save in close combat

Reposition - When assaulted the Exarch counts being in cover

Swooping Hakws

24 points.

Less comfortable with the changes for these, but here's a go.... probably still way undercosted.

Intercept - Comes as standard.

Hawk Wings - Count as a jump pack infantry, may also make a 24" turbo boost move.

Grenade Pack - Same as now, plus when making a turbo boost move pick one unengaged enemy unit moved over, and for each Hawk in the unit the enemy unit suffers one S4 AP4 hit.

Weapons: Ranger Long Rifle, Shuriken Pistol, Plasma and Haywire Grenades.

Exarch

Weapons

Exarch Long Rifle - Range 48", counts as an assault weapon

Sunrifle - As now.

Grenade Pack - A 12" assault 2 EML.

Powers

Snipe - Shooting attack rolls of a 6 count as AP1. In the case of long rifles this means shooting attack rolls of 5+ count as AP1.

The Hawk Descends - When charging the Exarch's close combat attacks are at +1 S and count as power weapon attacks.

Skyleap - As now.

Shining Spears

30 points

Hit and Run - Comes as standard

Exarch

Weapons

Starlance - Same as now

Moonspear - A laser lance that does not count as a power weapon, but it it does ignore invulnerable saves and its attacks cause instance death

Insert name here - A laser lance that gives +1 A

Powers

Skilled Rider - Same as now.

Devastating Charge - if on the first round of combat the Exarch wipes out or breaks the enemy unit then the Exarch and the unit he is with may make a full 6" consolidation move. This can be used to move the unit into close combat. No additional combat is fought this round, but the unit does count as charging for the next round.

Jink - The Exarch gains a 5++ invulnerable save.

Shadow Spectres

30 points.

Considering changing their armour save to a 4+/6++ a la DE Ghostplate

Change to the Ghostlight: Counts as twinlinked.

Exarch

Weapons

Prism Blaster - As now

Haywire Launcher - As now

Prism ? - 18" S6 AP2 Blast

Powers

Spectral - Unit gains stealth

Soul Eye - The Exarch's shooting ignores cover. If he participates in the ghostlight shot then it also ignores cover.

? - The Exarch gains tank hunter. If he participates in the ghostlight shot then it gains tank hunter.

Dark Reapers

30 points

Shooting counts as being an AA mount. Ignores saves from moving fast, e.g. turbo boost saves.

Exarch

Weapons

? Launcher - An EML with the standard 2 shooting options (Plasma and Haywire) with a third option to fire as a reaper launcher.

? Launcher - A Reaper Launcher that is AP2.

Tempest Launcher -As now.

Sorry Shuriken Cannon, you were just too out of place.

Powers

Crack Shot - As now

Fast Shot - As now

Khaine's Guidance - The Exarch does not require LOS for his shooting attacks (!)
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Splog on April 8, 2012, 07:50:30 AM
Warlocks

A warlock unit can be taken as a retinue for a Farseer or as an Elite choice.

Warlocks drop to 24 points (matches with the 24 point tier for Aspects)

All current warlock powers are 10 points.

Controversial - considering removing the ability for warlocks to have jetbikes (except when leading a Guardian jetbike unit). I know this will upset a lot of players and armies though!

Conceal changes to: +1 to cover saves, if the unit isn't in cover then they gain a 5+ cover save.

Warseer

A warlock that has become trapped upon his path, as per Exarchs. A warlock unit may upgrade one model to be a Warseer. Warseers cannot be used as unit leaders for other squads (e.g. wraithguard and guardians)

+ 12 points, which gives +1 A, +1 LD, Rune Armour becomes 3++, and Witch weapons gain rending.

A Warseer may take one standard Warlock power, or one of the 'second tier' Warlock powers listed below. These work the same as Warlock powers in that they are always on and no psychic tests need to be taken.

Bane - Daemons and Psykers in base to base contact with the Warseer halve their WS and I (rounding up). Note that the Eldar Avatar, Warlocks, Farseers, and Shadowseers (friend or foe!) are not effected by this power.

Rush - The Warseer and his unit always count as having rolled a 6 when running, and they may ignore the effects of difficult terrain.

Veil of Tears - Same as the shadow seer. Note1: This and a fortuned jetbike unit would be too horrible. Note2: Borrowing the Harlequin power is deliberate, as a way of harmonising abilities etc (much in the same way as I want Heat Lances instead of Fusion Guns). In the 'grand plan' Shadow Seers will have a boosted stat line and come with one standard warlock power (e.g. conceal/embolden/enhance/destructor) and one of these second tier powers.

? - Enemy units within 6" of the Warseer have -1LD. They must pass a morale check to assault the Warseer / the unit the Warseer is with.

I wanted to include a 'Vaul's Unmaking' but couldn't figure out a good way to incorporate it.

Phoenix Lords note

Phoenix Lords are still a work in progress (jigging their equipment a bit), but largely they will be the as they are now, but:

- Possibly a drop to 155 points to match the Avatar and Yriel, or a minor readjustment down with the Avatar and Yreil getting a boost.
- Come with the 3 powers that their respective Exarch's get (as outlined in this thread)
- Retinue: A Phoenix Lord may be accompanied by a unit of his relevant Aspect. These do not count against the FOC minimum or maximum. The Phoenix Lord does not have to join the unit.

Hopefully Phoenix Lords will be pretty decent characters and absolute monsters at their Aspect's chosen role.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Lachdonin on April 28, 2012, 09:03:30 PM
Ok, i expect to change this post later as a continue to work through this, but i did note something i had missed on my first pass.

Aetherlances. No. Just... just now. Waaaay too much power contained in the unit there. A CC variant of the Wraithguard should rely more on their inherent durability and above average strength and not some over the top CC weapon. Creating CC Wraithguard opens the opportunity to include something in the Eldar list which we lack, a good tar pit. The oportunity to expant the tactical opportunities of the army as a whole should be more important than an indiscriminate wrecking ball. Give CC Wraithguard an Eldar Stormshield and a +1S weapon (but not power weapon) and you have an incredably sturdy unit, which though expencive could tie up most assault units for several turns, halting the enemy advance cold.

For Farseers, they are already among the best buff machines out there, and Runes of Warding offer better protection, on average, than a Psychic Hood. What Farseers lack in terms of the current trend is variety. Some new powers, which confer some USR's (such as Acute Senses or Move Through Cover) would be nice. Or the ability to remotely activate Warlock powers on units. Casting conceal on a Banshee squad, caught in the open, could save plenty of lives.

I've already logged my complaints about Fire Dragons...

For Banshees, Finese Strike, i think, would be cleaner if it just caused a reroll rather than modifying the save. Crap like Entropic Strike is just bringing back the spreadsheets of 2nd edition...

Dire Avengers... Give them back Bladestorm, and take away Battle Fate. You can already get a similar effect with a shimmer shield, and you can jsut make said shield an additional option rather than an either/or weapon choice.

Hawks. Give the poor boys their Lasblasters. They really are a good weapon. They have double the ROF over 24" as a Lasgun, with a higher BS than your average Guardsman. No, their not going to put some serious hurt on Marines, but they can rip chunks out of Guard, Tau Orks and Tyranids. We have enough things to kill MC's, giving them Long Rifles (which would be useless to them anyway, since they don't have Relentless) isn't nessessary and cripples their capabilities against the aforementioned armies.

While i agree with the Monofiliment Mesh rule for Spiders, the Templates is too much. 10 S6 templates will absolutely ruin anything without an AV value. Unless you plan on costing them at least 50pts a pop, theres no way to ballance that.

I think some relfection time is in order from there... maybe i'll come back.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Wyldhunt on May 27, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
Hey there.  You've got some really cool ideas here, and you seem to be very receptive to criticism.  That said, I really don't like most of what you've done with the Fast Attack section.

Warp Spiders:
* Template weapons as standard is something people try out when suggesting warp spider changes pretty frequently.  Often this is a call back to when their weapons were template weapons. That said, I personally find this method very cumbersome, annoying, and frankly unkind to your opponent.  Do you really want to take the time to figure out how many models are being hit by 10 different flamers, all while your opponent is waiting for you to figure out just how many S6 wounds he's about to take?
* I don't really care for the WJG changes. This is more reliable.  Reliable is nice but sort of contradictory to their fluff about being a very risky aspect due to the possibility of being lost to the warp. It also takes a little of the fun of randomness out of it and diminishes the total range they can potentially travel with their assault jump.
* I don't care for spider arms not because they don't fit the weaponry theme but because the (rather cool-looking) power blades on the arms of the warp spiders model look like they should be... well... power weapon blades. Not something monofilament based.  That said, a harlie kiss rending cc weapon option would be pretty cool.
* You've taken away their ability to get out of cc if I'm not mistaken.  I'd much rather have Withdraw than Reposition.

Swooping Hawks:
Lots of interesting ideas here that were discussed but mostly turned down for the redux.  My only real complaint about these guys is that you gave them a heavy weapon.  So now the super quick fast attack choice can maybe potentially possibly hurt light transports and deal with MCs (not something I usually consider a primary target for them), but they can't really deal with swarms (something I consider a primary target for them) or shoot in the same turn they move (which I consider to be their primary asset.) Lasblasters aren't very impressive, but I simply don't see sniper rifles working well with these guys.

Hmm. Alright, those were my only real complaints about the Fast Attack section.  I really like what you did with the Shining Spears, by the way.  I will, before I end this post, add that I don't like your EML, however.  I love haywire effects; I really do.  That said, your EML takes away my go-to anti-vehicle weapon's ability to actually hurt vehicles and turns it into yet another anti-infantry weapon with some chance to also annoy vehicles.  Personally, I'd rather replace the anti-infantry profile with the haywire profile so that it can either deal real damage to light vehicles or reliably annoy land raiders and such.  Granted, this does make it shine even less next to the bright lance, but I'm sort of biased against the bright lance due to its cost at the moment. 

Overall, there are lots of cool ideas here.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Arquarian on May 28, 2012, 09:41:48 AM
You do have some good ideas and I see that you're harking back to the glory days of 2nd ed with a couple of your choices.

I like that you're to the warp spiders for a boon but as has been noted there were obvious reasons this version of the unit didn't work and was therefore scrapped. Have you considered possibly a return to the WJJ rules of 3rd/4th? i.e. making them a teleport device rather than then generic jump packs we have now. Of course there's probably a reason this version didn't last long either ;)

I also like the idea of the EML firing the haywire ammunition but you have to be aareful not to step on the toes of the bright lance. remember disabling a tank stunning it is almost as effective as blowing it up. What about a version of the Dark reaper missile launcher? 36" S5 AP3 Heavy 3 but again here are we strepping on the toes of the starcannon? Although the ignores cover option on this weapon would sort that (I like this idea too)

This is an interesting approach as to how the list could be developed but like the other guys are hinting at it needs refinement, play testing and balancing.

Keep up the good work!

Arq.

Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Fenris on May 31, 2012, 12:44:28 PM
Just a few opinions, which I think you should consider:

Avengers: don't need battlefate IMHO, just give them plasma grenades, and they should be fine.

Spiders: should be teleporting as in previous editions, I like the template, however it may be a bit overpowered, capping the unit to 5 or 6 models may solve this, otherwise I think the exarch should be allowed a template weapon option at least.

Hawks: with a longrifle? No, way, assault 3 lasblasters sounds much better, or possibly adding a special pinning to the lasblasters as they are which will cause -1Ld for each wound suffered on their pinning test, instead.
(Fluff: I think the hawks should be able to suppress their foes with sheer rate of fire)
An ability to allow them to shoot one target and assault another would also be nice.

Shining Spears: don't need that devastating charge, a full 6" consolidate or an additional dice would be better IMHO, how about granting the laser lances rending?

Shadow spectres: I really can't say much about since I never seen them on the field.

Dark reapers: options are awesome, although S5 AP1 for the exarchs ?Launcher wouldn't be OP IMHO.

Psykers: I like the idea of the warseer (or the former called warlock champion from 2nd ed) however I think it should have W2 rather than a 3++ save, and psychic tests should be taken as normal.
The Shadowseer is actually another path similar to the farseer and I think he/she should have an identical statline to the farseer, and could unlock harlequins in the same fashion as the farseer unlocks a seer council.

Phoenix lords: and retinues is a great idea, and would fit well with my ideas for the shadowseer.

About the weapons I think swapping the imperial crack missile for haywires is the right way to go, it will open up for bright lances and S7 star cannons, this would make the bright lance the prime AT weapon and starcannons can bust transports and MC's alike, but normal infantry should be able to take shelter in cover from them IMHO.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Arquarian on June 1, 2012, 04:30:27 AM
I like the idea of the Warp Spider exarch getting template weapon, maybe not as high str as the death spinner but has the same pinning and entanglement effect as the doom weaver. would be fluffy, quite eldar and deifferent. and if done cirrrectly not too overpowered. And the teleport should definately work as a short range shunt style teleport and not a jump pack. I believe they nerfed this to bring them in line with other jump pack troops inthe game to streamline the rules but did nothing for the unit. it also seems the doctrine now is for every army to get a multitude of special rules any way.

I likie the idea that Phoenix lords are character upgrades for aspect squads. They would still be prohibativly expensive to run more than one but this would move them out of the HQ section which is already heavily over populated.

I really like the haywire missile option but is it not going to replace the Brightlance? maybe a points shift would counter this. Also I'd rather see the starcannon gain ignore cover than simply an extra shot. The reason why it was bnerfed in the first place was it was over powered. But again maybe ignore cover would make it over powered, perhaps a S reduction to S5 would counter?


I'll agree with the Avengers. these guys are the closest thing we have to ageneral all rounder. Plasma grenades should come as stacdard, Hell they're already on the spru! (so much for WISIWYG  ??? )

Hawks with longarms simpley makes them similar to the old version of the DE scourge. Lasblasters are great. I have new found love for this weapon since running my Corsair army. 20 S3 shots at 24" range and BS4 is not a weapon to underestimate. Assualt 3 I think would be going too far unless we're upping the points however the shoot one assault another I could definately see as an option and I believe suits their style.


Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Lord Ulthanash on June 10, 2012, 05:48:09 PM
Just my 0.02 from skimming over this, I'll probably come back and comment in detail later.

Why don't we make the shuriken catapult 18" rapid fire and the avenger catapult 18" assault 2? It has seemed kind of silly to me that the same gun somehow loses 1/3 of it's range because it's in the hands of an untrained soldier. If I am given a rifle today and pull the trigger that bullet is going just as far as if a marine pulled the trigger - the difference is in that I am nowhere near as effective at aiming it, firing it on the move, etc.... I think this solves the catapult problem quite nicely. Also, leave the Avengers with bladestorm. Another thing I've been toying with is the ability to give guardians lasblasters (like IA11 Corsairs). If I remember correctly, earlier editions (I'm talking pre-3rd edition, before I played) had guardians armed with lasguns, but I could be wrong.

I think it would be fair for the shuriken cannons to be 30" S5 AP 4 Heavy 4 . I think this would also reduce the amount of scatter laser spam significantly. A slight points increase for shuricannons would probably be justifiable, if this upgrade were mdae.

Starcannons either need to be made S5 Heavy 3 or S7 Heavy 2. As much as I miss them, the old stats were ridiculous, there was no reason to take any other weapon ever (particularly the scatter laser).

I'd like to see the brightlance with AP1, but that might be OP (but I don't think so). Has anyone play tested that? I also really like the new design for the EML, and I think if that were to be implemented along with an AP1 brightlance (that costs more) things would be fine.

Warp Spiders should make a teleport assault move, not a regular 6" jump. I like the monofilament rule.

I'll get to the rest of the aspect warriors at another time, but I will say that I do like the idea to make Phoenix lords character upgrades for aspect squads, perhaps an additional upgrade on top of the exarch? (A fire dragon may be upgraded to exarch for + x points. An exarch may be upgraded to Fuegan at + y points. There may only be one Fuegan in your army). I think it's silly to have them as independent characters, particularly HQs (especially considering that aspect warriors and exarchs dont make battle strategies, they are completely subservient to the autarchs). I would accept a slight decrease in the phoenix lord's monstrous abilities in exchange for making them an exarch upgrade.

The only concern that I would have is htat every person would run phoenix lords instead of regular exarchs. Something about this needs to be designed to prohibit such behavior.

EDIT:

I don't think a separate 'unit' for close combat wraithguard is necessary.... why not just allow them to take wraithblades?

MATH-HAMMER (calculated against standard MEQ):
10 wraithguard on the charge  = 20 attacks
20 attacks = 10 hits
wraithblade rerolls failed to hits, so another 5 hits
15 hits = 10 wounds
10 wounds = 3.333 dead MEQs

The unit you charged isn't getting that many attacks back, and are trying to wound a T6 model.... I think that's more than fair enough.

I like the idea of Warlocks being either a Retinue choice for Farseers and an Elites choice. I also like the idea of the Warseer, but why make his rune armor 3++? That doesn't really make any sense whatsoever... if his is 3++ why isn't the Farseer's?

As for your whole active/passive psychic power thing, a long time ago I thought of a solution that I thought was simpler. Why not have two psychic power lists for ALL Eldar psykers. One list requires no psychic test and is available all the time. The other you have to test for. Allow a Farseer virtually unlimited access to both lists. Warlocks must choose one power from the list that requires no test and MAY choose one from the list that does require a test (but with 1 wound and a lower leadership, you will be far less likely to go crazy here - there is a significant risk of your psyker dying!) Then we could add some powers to both lists, and everything would be fine.

I'm not really going to get into the aspect warriors. They feel kind of gimmicky to me; I already quite like how (most) of our aspect warriors work.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Lachdonin on June 10, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
Quote from: Lord Ulthanash on June 10, 2012, 05:48:09 PM
Why don't we make the shuriken catapult 18" rapid fire and the avenger catapult 18" assault 2? It has seemed kind of silly to me that the same gun somehow loses 1/3 of it's range because it's in the hands of an untrained soldier. If I am given a rifle today and pull the trigger that bullet is going just as far as if a marine pulled the trigger - the difference is in that I am nowhere near as effective at aiming it, firing it on the move, etc.... I think this solves the catapult problem quite nicely. Also, leave the Avengers with bladestorm. Another thing I've been toying with is the ability to give guardians lasblasters (like IA11 Corsairs). If I remember correctly, earlier editions (I'm talking pre-3rd edition, before I played) had guardians armed with lasguns, but I could be wrong.

This is an argument which went through a lot of back and forth early on in the redux, and without turning it into another 20 page debate, i will say what i can in a short, concise manner.

First, the range thing. The Shuriken Catapult is effective over 18", but a normal guardian couldn't hope to hit anything with more than dumb luck at that range. Avengers, as more skilled soldiers, are actually able to reasonably hit at the extent of the range for the weapon. Look at it like a sniper rifle. A moderately good sniper can hit his target at 500 meters. The greats can hit something with the same weapon at over a kilometer. The weapon doesn't care about the range, but the accuracy is primarily in the hands of the shooter.

And that's without the in-universe explanation that Avenger catapults are of a superior quality. These weapons are used by the Aspect Shrines and not given to Guardians because of the extra maintenance the extended rails and sighting systems require, and as such are only trusted to trained, professional soldiers.

As for the rapid fire thing... A rapid fire weapon is innately inferior to a Assault weapon at the same range. The Eldar weapons, from 3rd to 4th, lost all their Rapid Fire characteristics in exchange for Assault, simply for the reason that the Eldar are supposed to be more advanced.

Second, lasblasters. Back in 2nd edition, Guardians could use them. The Corsairs can use them now. My main issue with Guardians having them again is this. The Lasblaster, like many weapons in the Eldar list, have become (background wise) ritualistically associated with a particular Shrine. By giving it once again to Guardians, you change the nature of the ritualization of the Aspect Shrines, and thus change how the entire Eldar background works. Corsairs can get away with using them because they don't follow such strict guidelines regarding conduct as true Craftworlders do.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Lord Ulthanash on June 10, 2012, 07:48:55 PM
Quote from: Lachdonin on June 10, 2012, 06:56:29 PM


First, the range thing. The Shuriken Catapult is effective over 18", but a normal guardian couldn't hope to hit anything with more than dumb luck at that range. Avengers, as more skilled soldiers, are actually able to reasonably hit at the extent of the range for the weapon. Look at it like a sniper rifle. A moderately good sniper can hit his target at 500 meters. The greats can hit something with the same weapon at over a kilometer. The weapon doesn't care about the range, but the accuracy is primarily in the hands of the shooter.

And that's without the in-universe explanation that Avenger catapults are of a superior quality. These weapons are used by the Aspect Shrines and not given to Guardians because of the extra maintenance the extended rails and sighting systems require, and as such are only trusted to trained, professional soldiers.

As for the rapid fire thing... A rapid fire weapon is innately inferior to a Assault weapon at the same range. The Eldar weapons, from 3rd to 4th, lost all their Rapid Fire characteristics in exchange for Assault, simply for the reason that the Eldar are supposed to be more advanced.

Second, lasblasters. Back in 2nd edition, Guardians could use them. The Corsairs can use them now. My main issue with Guardians having them again is this. The Lasblaster, like many weapons in the Eldar list, have become (background wise) ritualistically associated with a particular Shrine. By giving it once again to Guardians, you change the nature of the ritualization of the Aspect Shrines, and thus change how the entire Eldar background works. Corsairs can get away with using them because they don't follow such strict guidelines regarding conduct as true Craftworlders do.

I do agree that rapid fire weapons are innately inferior to assault weapons at the same range, and I understand that the Eldar use assault weapons because 1) they are more advanced and 2) the army is all about speed, and who wants to be wasting time not moving, firing and assaulting? I think that point is mitigated slightly by the fact that by their nature, guardians are more stand and shoot, and AREN'T good in the assault phase (well, defender guardians). That said, I'm not too fond of rapid fire rules, I just thought it was the simplest solution. Another option I thought of was:

Shuriken catapult
Assault 1/Heavy 2

Avenger Catapult
Assault 2/Heavy 4

And then you could get rid of the whole bladestorm power for the avengers (I think it's even more fair than current bladestorm rules actually - they wouldn't be able move and fire that turn and they can't assault).

It would be a little... ridiculous though. 40 shots. 26.667 hits. 13.333 wounds. 4.444 kills (math calculated against MEQs). I think it would be fair if the Dire Avengers were boosted up to 14/15 a model though (which would be more in line with other aspect warriors and their statline).

I agree about the lasblaster thing, it would make swooping hawks seem a little... worthless. Perhaps an upgrade for the hawk lasblaster - either S4 or assault 3 (both would be ridiculous). Otherwise, it isn't really right for guardians to get lasblasters, I agree.

On the flipside, how is giving a lasblaster to a guardian diminishing the ritual significance of the gun to the swooping hawks, but giving a shuriken catapult to them isn't diminishing to the catapult's relationship with the avengers? I definitely agree with your point, but I think that as long as there are two different statlines for the aspects to use and the guardians to use it would be fine.

EDIT: I had an idea that I quite like in regards to Fire Dragons, and I'd like to hear other people's thoughts (maybe I'm just crazy). GW seems to not have fully decided what the Fire Dragons' role should be (they're gods at destroying anything in heavy armor, but sort of become a sacrifice, popping one unit/tank and then dying). They tried mitigating this with the Dragon's Breath flamer, but who really take that? Also, I seem to recall some complaints about them using fusion guns, which is exactly the same as the Imperium, and we ARE supposed to have superior weaponry (our arrogance is only matched by our firepower, after all).

So this is what I propose:

Dragongun (name is up for discussion, I just pulled it out my ass because it has to be called something for now). It has two profiles:

12" S8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta

or

Template S4 AP5 Assault 1

The exarch can be armed with an older, more sophisticated, and bigger dragongun called the Dragonlance, with the following profiles:

Firepike with Lance (yes this is essentially a souped-up heat lance)

or

the dragon's breath flamer.

Now, to have  both of these options available at once would mean that Fire Dragon's would have to go up to somewhere around 20 points (I think, to be fair), but would anybody really complain? They'd be able to destroy practically anything thrown at them, and wouldn't be absolute sitting ducks when they finally leave their transports. They'd still be vulnerable to most weapons and probably bought in small unit sizes, so I think it would be pretty fair. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Irisado on June 11, 2012, 06:23:17 AM
[mod]A reminder to everyone that stats can only be posted if they are being changed. Please don't post weapon stats which are the same as those in existing codices, as this is against the forum rules. I've made some edits accordingly.[/mod]

Quote from: Lord Ulthanash on June 10, 2012, 05:48:09 PM
I'd like to see the brightlance with AP1, but that might be OP (but I don't think so). Has anyone play tested that?

It was play tested thoroughly by those involved with the Eldar redux, and found to be too effective.  Some of the discussion on this subject over the last few years can be found here (http://www.40konline.com/index.php?topic=183427.0).
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Wyldhunt on June 11, 2012, 11:37:53 PM
@Ulthanash:

I'm afraid I don't care for your dragon gun idea very much.  It would be cool to have a bunch of fire dragons shooting out flame attacks like that for the sake of the awesome visuals, but I'm against any mechanic that calls for an entire squad of template weapons being resolved. 2 or 3 flamers to resolve isn't usually too bad, but I really don't want to have to sit around and wait for my opponent to resolve that many different template attacks. 

Additionally, I feel this would make the fire dragons fill a sort of dual-purpose. They would become both excellent anti-vehicle units and excellent anti-swarm units.  I'm among those who feel it is unfluffy for eldar to be generalists in this way.  I like the dragons as they are (they're quite possibly our most powerful option.)  Were I to make changes I could see strong arguments for giving them heat lances instead of fusion guns (lets them melta things from outside of explosion range) and for swapping out their fleet rule in exchange for a 3+ armor save to help them withstand incoming attacks. With these changes, tank hunters would become a pretty worthwhile upgrade for land raider hunting.  I love crackshot, but I'd sort of like to see it get replaced with a rule that offers the dragons protection from flamer/melta weapons and/or from explodes! results.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Lord Ulthanash on June 12, 2012, 02:44:43 AM
Quote from: Wyldhunt on June 11, 2012, 11:37:53 PM
@Ulthanash:

...I'm against any mechanic that calls for an entire squad of template weapons being resolved. 2 or 3 flamers to resolve isn't usually too bad, but I really don't want to have to sit around and wait for my opponent to resolve that many different template attacks. 

Additionally, I feel this would make the fire dragons fill a sort of dual-purpose. They would become both excellent anti-vehicle units and excellent anti-swarm units.  I'm among those who feel it is unfluffy for eldar to be generalists in this way.  I like the dragons as they are (they're quite possibly our most powerful option.)  Were I to make changes I could see strong arguments for giving them heat lances instead of fusion guns (lets them melta things from outside of explosion range) and for swapping out their fleet rule in exchange for a 3+ armor save to help them withstand incoming attacks. With these changes, tank hunters would become a pretty worthwhile upgrade for land raider hunting.  I love crackshot, but I'd sort of like to see it get replaced with a rule that offers the dragons protection from flamer/melta weapons and/or from explodes! results.

I know it would make them a dual-purpose unit, which was sort of the idea behind it, it would increase their usefulness a lot. But considering, like you said, they are one of our most useful units already, perhaps that is unnecessary. I was suggesting that with a balants points increase though. I agree, I generally don't like Eldar units being multi-purpose, but I don't feel like GW has really decided on what they want the dragons' role to be (why give the exarch a dragon's breath flamer, for example?) Perhaps heat lances would be a good idea. That would make them less useful at killing heavily armored infantry though, with the benefit of destroying vehicles far more easily. I'm not sure if I'm a fan of that. I'm not sure if I like the idea of giving them a 3+ armor save either... if you look at the units that do have a 3+, you can see that Fire Dragons don't really fit in. They are a unit that is always moving, and 3+ saves are reserved for stationary/slow eldar and jetbikes.  An exarch rule that protected the dragons from flamer/melta weapons and from explodes (a variant of the Avatar's Molten Body, perhaps?) results would be great and a lot more useful than crack shot, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Arquarian on June 12, 2012, 06:26:17 AM
Yeah I' with wyldhunt here. I don't like the idea that they become a generalist unit. Quite un-Eldary in my mind. Giving them a heat lance will result in smaller suicide dedicated anti armour units. I'm not a fan of degrading them so. the 3+ save i think is also a no no. giving them a sepecial rule negating the effects of melta weapons is pointless because ot the end of the day is a high powered weapon which will negate theeir armour anyways. and makeing them completely  impervious to such weapons would in my mind be rediculous.

Crack shot is good when coupled with the DBF but here were moving down the generalist path but I believe not too far.
Personally I think Dragons are great just the way they are.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Splog on September 13, 2012, 12:49:04 PM
Some updates / new ideas following the release of 6th edition (also it seems its the same time of year again where I have a need to procrastinate rather than do coursework).

Changes to the EML and Starcannon.

Armoury Changes

WeaponRange S AP Notes
Shuriken Catapult 18"as codexas codexas codex
Starcannonas codexas codexas codexas codex, Blind
Eldar Missile Launcher
Haywire
48"--Haywire
Haywire AA
48"--Haywire, Skyfire
Plasma
48"as codexas codexAssault 1 + as codex

Shuriken Catapult - Range increased to 18". This is my proposed solution to the 'shuriken catapult problem'. This effects multiple units, and helps Guardians a fair bit. Some re-costing might be needed. By relation this diminishes the Dire Avengers a bit, but I'm proposing that their Shuriken Catapults count as twin linked. Currently 10 DAs will get 0-20 shooting hits, with an 'expected' 13 hits. With twin linked this rises to 18 expected hits.

EML - As with the Fire Dragon's weapon change this change is partly driven by trying to make Eldar ranged weaponry more unique, and not shared with other races. Frag rounds have already been replaced with Plasma as the Eldar equivalent. This change replaced Krak rounds with the Eldar equivalent tank-busting grenade - Haywire. This makes the EML good at suppressing vehicles, and a good choice to suppress AV14. This change makes it better against heavy vehicles. Worse against light vehicles. And of course worse against heavy infantry and MCs. It also provides Eldar with an AA option. An interesting AA option: long range, plenty of BS4 and twin-linked platforms, very high reliability to take off a HP, but not all that likely to take out a flyer with a single shot.

Starcannon - at the current points cost the Starcannon isn't used much so something needs to change. The prime alternative candidate is to make it the same as the DE disintegrator, but I'm in favour of having the set of S6 Eldar heavy weapons. So, this proposed alternative. It could also become a blast weapon. Proposed change: the weapon gains Blind. This makes it an interesting option to suppress enemy fire, or to put a unit that is about to be assaulted at a disadvantage. It would also have extra use against MCs and Walkers; and players may end up opting to shoot at Walkers that they have little or no hope of damaging. Extra utility is good. Being an almost decent weapon anyway, adding Blind to a range 36 weapon gives it great utility and I think would encourage uptake of the weapon without being too crazy. It would be useful to hinder MCs and Walkers. I quite like the idea of giving it 'Strafe'; Strafing Run for a specific weapon (think: super-bright continuous beam moving towards the enemy), but that might be overkill.

Brightlance - I can't see this one changing too much, particularly with the recent(ish) release of the DE codex that retained the same stat-line for the Dark Lance. Maybe a smallish points jig.

Aspect Warriors 1 version deux

All Aspect Warriors have Night Fighting.
Exarchs can have up to two Exarch powers.
Things not mentioned haven't changed (e.g. Scorpions have the same weapons)

Fire Dragons
Exarch
Striking Scorpions
Exarch

Howling Banshees
Exarch

I still like/want the option for Howling Banshees to assault out of transports, but not sure if that is too much at 18 points a model. Moving away from power swords is a big step, but I feel it fits their role well and further specialises them as good first round shock troopers.

Post edited in accordance with the reminder I issued back in June:

Quote from: Irisado on June 11, 2012, 06:23:17 AM
A reminder to everyone that stats can only be posted if they are being changed.  Please don't post weapon stats which are the same as those in existing codices, as this is against the forum rules.  I've made some edits accordingly.

Vehicle Upgrades

Holo-field: Gives Shrouding

Spirit Stones: If the initial result on the damage table is Crew Stunned, treat it as Crew Shaken. If it was Crew Shaken then ignore it. Hull points are still lost as normal.

Star Engines: Same

Vectored Engines: Same + if given to a flyer it gains Vector Dancer

Haywire Field: At the start of each round of CC, all enemy models in combat with the vehicle take an automatic hit as per a Haywire Grenade in the BRB
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Dread on September 15, 2012, 12:18:28 AM
Star Cannons should have their heavy 3 status back. Spiders should have own rules for warp gen's. Something like may move up to 12" in the movement phase and another12" in the assult pahase with no problems and from 12" to 24" with a dangerous terrign test, 24" to 36" with a D test on a 1 or 2 no armor saves. Deathspinners should be str 6 ap- template if a hit is scored and the unit doesn't move, the enemy unit is ensnared and may do nothing the next turn. You know things like this.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Saim-Hann Corsair on September 29, 2012, 08:03:54 PM
To be honest, I feel that changing the Sh Cat to 18" will drastically change the dynamics of the entire Eldar list. I am not sure what you define "competitive" as but it appears you mean cheap costing high powered stuff. If you want 18" Sh Cat, then take Avengers - the Elite troop choice. If you are unimpressed by Guardians firing then take twenty and have them fire 40 shots and see what happens. But rarely do you see people do that.

Also, how will 18" Sh Cat make Jetbikes? I would imagine that they would make them way to powerful.

I don't know, it just seems like people want a cheap Dire Avenger, so take Guardians and try to use them in the same way.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Partninja on September 29, 2012, 08:25:27 PM
Quote from: Saim-Hann Corsair on September 29, 2012, 08:03:54 PM
To be honest, I feel that changing the Sh Cat to 18" will drastically change the dynamics of the entire Eldar list. I am not sure what you define "competitive" as but it appears you mean cheap costing high powered stuff. If you want 18" Sh Cat, then take Avengers - the Elite troop choice. If you are unimpressed by Guardians firing then take twenty and have them fire 40 shots and see what happens. But rarely do you see people do that.

Also, how will 18" Sh Cat make Jetbikes? I would imagine that they would make them way to powerful.

I don't know, it just seems like people want a cheap Dire Avenger, so take Guardians and try to use them in the same way.

While I agree increasing the range changes a lot of dynamics within the army you also should consider other things. Avengers have other better stats (BS, armor save, LD) as well as an Exarch who enhances them as well. It closes the gap, but I'm not sure the gap is that small. They both would still have different uses

The threat range on jetbikes would be pretty crazy, however I don't think it would be all that powerful. It's still an average infantrymen gun. Granted, being twinlinked can make it fairly powerful, but you would need a full 10-man squad for that and that is quite a lot of points as well.

I don't think it would be that over powered, but it would change the dynamics quite a bit.
Title: Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
Post by: Dread on October 2, 2012, 01:34:40 PM
Hey Splog, I like most of what you have posted for the Banshees. As for assult from a vehicle, ie assult ramp, those points would be for the vehicle so the 18 pts is fine. The only other thing I think they should have is +1 str on the charge to show them jumping in the air and thrusting or heavy swing, but only if they charge. We need an assult vehicle, front assult ramp, call it the Sting Ray or something. I don't really like the lance idea for them but maybe as an upgrade for the exarch. As for the shur cats, I agree with the others about the range, funny I've been complaining about the 12" range for so long now I can't believe I said that. Hopefully when our dex does come, it won't be brutalized like some of the last ones.