News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)  (Read 8463 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fenris

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2169
  • Country: se
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Aeldari
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #20 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.
Ego in propria persona, non compos mentis.

Offline Arquarian

  • Infinity Circuit
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Country: 00
  • all is dust...
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #21 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.



Offline Lord Ulthanash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1007
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Eldar: Corsairs and Ulthwe
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #22 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.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 06:10:44 AM by Irisado »


He who sees his own doom can better avoid its path. He who sees the doom of others can deliver it.

Offline Lachdonin

  • Warlock
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Country: 00
  • Education is no substitute for Intelligence.
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2012, 06:56:29 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.
Remember, you can make yourself a Hero, but only others can make you a God.

Offline Lord Ulthanash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1007
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Eldar: Corsairs and Ulthwe
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2012, 07:48:55 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?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 06:14:12 AM by Irisado »


He who sees his own doom can better avoid its path. He who sees the doom of others can deliver it.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #25 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]

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.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Wyldhunt

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #26 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.

Offline Lord Ulthanash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1007
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Eldar: Corsairs and Ulthwe
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2012, 02:44:43 AM »
@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.


He who sees his own doom can better avoid its path. He who sees the doom of others can deliver it.

Offline Arquarian

  • Infinity Circuit
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Country: 00
  • all is dust...
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #28 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.

Offline Splog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Country: 00
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #29 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
  • 18 points each
  • 3+ Save
  • Tank Hunters
  • Heat Lances instead of Fusion Guns
  • Haywire grenades instead of Melta Bombs
Exarch
  • Weapon Options:
    • Firepike: Range 24" S8 Heatlance
    • FireDooDah: Heatlance with Blast
    • 2x Inferno Pistols (also counts as two CC weapons)
  • Exarch Powers:
    • Feel No Pain
    • Immune to flame, melta, and plasma weapons
    • Monster Hunter
Striking Scorpions
  • 18 points each
  • Infiltrate
  • Move Through Cover
  • Stealth
Exarch
  • Same weapon options
  • Exarch Powers:
    • Onslaught: To-wound rolls of a six in CC generate an extra attack
    • Rampage
    • CC attacks gain Strikedown

Howling Banshees
  • 18 points each
  • Banshee Mask
    • I 10 on first round of combat
    • Don't suffer penalties for charging through cover
    • Gain Fear on a turn in which they charge
    • A charged enemy cannot use overwatch against the unit
  • Power Lance instead of Power Sword
Exarch
  • Same weapon options except Executioner is AP2
  • Exarch Powers:
    • Dodge: 4++ save in close combat
    • Furious Charge
    • Each round of CC may nominate an enemy IC to be a preferred enemy

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:

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
« Last Edit: September 13, 2012, 04:54:09 PM by Splog »

Offline Dread

  • Warlock
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2366
  • Country: us
  • Voidraven, the stone skipping across the universe.
  • Armies: Eldar, DE, Harlis, Necrons,  sisters, Death guard
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #30 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.
"Burning thru the universe in search of peace only brings more war. Peace is an illusion, war is reality, that is the way of things"

                            Farseer Gol'Istria of    the Morea Nebula craftword

Offline Saim-Hann Corsair

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 121
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Eldar, Grey Knights
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #31 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.

Offline Partninja

  • Warlock
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2731
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #32 on: September 29, 2012, 08:25:27 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.

Offline Dread

  • Warlock
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2366
  • Country: us
  • Voidraven, the stone skipping across the universe.
  • Armies: Eldar, DE, Harlis, Necrons,  sisters, Death guard
Re: Eldar codex revamp (mk 367)
« Reply #33 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.
"Burning thru the universe in search of peace only brings more war. Peace is an illusion, war is reality, that is the way of things"

                            Farseer Gol'Istria of    the Morea Nebula craftword

 


Powered by EzPortal