News:

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Eldar tweaks....contacting GW....  (Read 1552 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeekingOne

  • Exarch
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Country: ru
  • May Hoeth guide our ways...
  • Armies: Eldar (Saim-Hann), Space Wolves
Re: Eldar tweaks....contacting GW....
« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2017, 09:19:25 AM »
@DukeWake
Quote
Dispersed: heavy D6 damage 1
Focused: heavy D3 damage D6
Lance: heavy 1 strength 16 damage 3D6
Special Rules: ignores the to-hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons.

I think such a high strength can be justified in 8th edition given that the strength-toughness relationship grows exponentially, this would allow the lance to wound slightly more consistently. Similarly allowing it to move and shoot without penalty fits its role as a mobile tank hunter. 3d6 damage may sound like a lot, but it is still less than the potential 4D6 damage that a las-pred can put out. The fire prism would have to be costed in the 200 - 210 point range to justify these stats though.

As a player, I would not field a Prism with that profile even for 150 pts, let alone 200+.

"Heavy D6" and "Heavy D3" not only generate extremely small number of shots in relation to their intended targets, but also are ridiculously unstable in addition to that. Anything less than Heavy 2D6 for dispersed shot is a joke, it's easier to just remove that profile completely.
3d6 damage is way too much though, even for a Heavy 1 weapon.

@Rhyleth
Quote
The Hemlock is widely touted as the best unit the Eldar have - how does its cost compare with that of fighters with a comparable output? Is some level of cost increase warranted? That's the obvious case, but what else in the 'Good' section can be identified as being too efficient?
From the point of view of matched play involving optimised lists on both sides, pretty much nothing except Hemlocks, Serpents and Reapers is even "efficient", let alone "too efficient". Hemlocks are roughly on par with Space Marine transport-gunships like Stormraven and Stormwolf, so they are ok.

The meaning of this initiative, as far as I see it, is not to balance out the whole army but just to draw attention to the most glaringly useless units. Anything more than that is futile imho.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 09:24:43 AM by SeekingOne »
I fight against Chaos and for Order, because it means fighting for Life against Death. There is no other battle truly worth fighting.

"If it's not for a tournament then play whatever it is that you like. Without the pressure of having to utterly destroy your opponent it opens up alot more opportunity to have fun." - Lazarus

Offline Rhyleth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Country: us
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: Eldar tweaks....contacting GW....
« Reply #61 on: July 31, 2017, 04:25:49 PM »
@Rhyleth
Quote
The Hemlock is widely touted as the best unit the Eldar have - how does its cost compare with that of fighters with a comparable output? Is some level of cost increase warranted? That's the obvious case, but what else in the 'Good' section can be identified as being too efficient?
From the point of view of matched play involving optimised lists on both sides, pretty much nothing except Hemlocks, Serpents and Reapers is even "efficient", let alone "too efficient". Hemlocks are roughly on par with Space Marine transport-gunships like Stormraven and Stormwolf, so they are ok.

The meaning of this initiative, as far as I see it, is not to balance out the whole army but just to draw attention to the most glaringly useless units. Anything more than that is futile imho.

Simply in terms of presentation it looks less than positive, and frankly not very realistic to an independent observer, to suggest that everything in the Eldar list is either okay or underpowered (with a good 50% of units falling somewhere within the latter category) when the army appears to be seen as tier 1 at least with Ynnari rules, and apparently as at least broadly competitive otherwise. The Ynnari can't be neglected since any rebalancing will affect those unless they get an entire points scheme of their own that prices the units differently in their list. It seems it could be a good idea to reach out to other parts of the forum to canvass how well Eldar players' opinions of the issues with their list mesh with those of players accustomed to playing against Eldar.

If there is a real army-wide issue that seems likely to lie with the army special rule - fleet of foot seems a trivial rule compared with at least some other armies (never mind Ynnari or Marines, consider things like Guard orders or anything the Mechanicus have).

At the very least, if we really want to home in on the most severe issues, like the Fire Prism's functionality or the unattractive pricing of the least playable units, we may want to ignore such things as the 'slightly overpriced' list altogether - minor issues that may cause the bigger problems to get lost in the noise even when they're flagged as minor. It's a much higher priority to fix the Fire Prism or appropriately cost Dire Avengers and support batteries than to shave a couple of points off the EML or the Scorpions.

Offline SeekingOne

  • Exarch
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Country: ru
  • May Hoeth guide our ways...
  • Armies: Eldar (Saim-Hann), Space Wolves
Re: Eldar tweaks....contacting GW....
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2017, 05:34:55 PM »
Quote
At the very least, if we really want to home in on the most severe issues, like the Fire Prism's functionality or the unattractive pricing of the least playable units, we may want to ignore such things as the 'slightly overpriced' list altogether - minor issues that may cause the bigger problems to get lost in the noise even when they're flagged as minor. It's a much higher priority to fix the Fire Prism or appropriately cost Dire Avengers and support batteries than to shave a couple of points off the EML or the Scorpions.
Exactly, this is just what I suggested initially when I posted the table with several grades of units - to focus on the "overpriced to the point of being largely unplayable" units.
I fight against Chaos and for Order, because it means fighting for Life against Death. There is no other battle truly worth fighting.

"If it's not for a tournament then play whatever it is that you like. Without the pressure of having to utterly destroy your opponent it opens up alot more opportunity to have fun." - Lazarus

Offline Rhyleth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Country: us
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: Eldar tweaks....contacting GW....
« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2017, 08:52:36 PM »
More games under my belt today, one vs. infantry Space Wolves and one vs. Knights - so pretty much both ends of the spectrum.

It strikes me that the core Eldar issue is that the Eldar, not having had a range update or new units to speak of save the fliers since 4th Edition - simply aren't suited to the superheavy era. They've always been excellent against infantry and good at targeted, mostly short-ranged strikes against vehicles - but even things the size of Land Raiders could give them trouble back in the day (in principle. In practice Land Raiders tended at least when I was last playing to be drastically overpriced for their firepower, as they paid so much for durability). In a full game my army succeeded in destroying one of three knights and coming close to taking down the second, but there was never any prospect of getting them all - and that's with what dedicated AT we have access to (Reapers, wraithcannon, Hemlock and Fire Prism). Nothing the Eldar have save the Scorpion seems remotely tailored to taking out superheavies, and the entire 'fast but fragile' motif goes out of the window in a world where things with the firepower of superheavies exist that penalise fragility so heavily.

Some of these 'problematic' units seem to work fine in more traditional games.

Fire Prism: We have this flagged as perhaps the least efficient unit in the list. I used it, reluctantly, because it really does have a role no other non-FW unit in the army effectively fills (save the Night Spinner, which I don't have). It overperformed today - my rolls were especially good with it, but it confirmed for me that this unit is good enough in its role if something can be done to mitigate the random element.

Fixed damage on the weapon modes (2-3 for focused, 6 for lance) and an ability allowing it to reroll the number of shots in focused or dispersed mode (even just rerolling 1 for the number of shots might be sufficient) is enough to make the unit fit for purpose. Even if that results in slightly lowered damage output relative to dedicated AT units like the Predator, the Fire Prism has a better unit profile (faster and with more wounds) and better anti-infantry capabilities.

Its cost is likely to still need tweaking - it's still inefficient relative to the Night Spinner - and there ought to be some rebalancing of the modes to make lance more attractive (a reroll ability already helps dispersed somewhat), but I don't think it's in as dire a situation as it's been portrayed.

Dire Avengers and Windriders: Nothing to say here. These units repeatedly underperformed and even when fairly effective don't justify their cost. Possibly I've been using them badly or haven't had good targets, but at this point I'm temped to bump shuricannon Windriders up to 'significantly overpriced'.

Farseer Skyrunner: I don't recognise the 'significantly overpriced' flag for this unit. The Farseer is an excellent HQ choice and the mobility of a bike has proved to be worth much more than I expected. It looks a very expensive upgrade, but the ability to smite more or less wherever he wants (or Doom or Guide, but since those aren't restricted to the closest unit that's less often relevant) and to almost invariably avoid being targeted at range is hard to put a price tag on - he benefits much more from being on a bike than combat characters like the Autarch.

Eldar Missile Launcher: Continued to perform well for me, but as its damage is variable and blast weapons are weaker than they once were I'm on the cost reduction train. I don't think it needs stat changes, and if it cost the same as the bright lance does now I'd most likely want the EML most of the time, so it probably either wants to be about 3pts cheaper or 25pts and the bright lance slightly cheaper or with a damage buff (2D3 or perhaps 3+D3 rather than D6).

Hemlock Wraithfighter: This unit should be more expensive. Not by much, perhaps (20-30 seems good), but it's sufficiently hard for non-specialised armies to harm even with its short range that I never even needed to use Conceal, and for a unit that can't be answered its effect on the battlefield is too good.

If we're setting as our baseline for appropriate costs the 'good' units in the table SeekingOne put together, there's little question that the Hemlock is substantially better for its cost than the other units here. It's already been pointed out by others that it's both more durable and with better average damage output against most targets than the Crimson Hunter - and that includes the Crimson Hunter's optimal targets. Yet the Hunter is only around 30pts cheaper.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 09:35:31 PM by Rhyleth »

 


Powered by EzPortal