Topic: Eldar is next.

[Rhyleth]

The style question is highly subjective, but one area where I will disagree is regarding the supposed change heralded by third edition.  All that did was to change the style of the Guardians and their associated weapons platforms and some constructs, such as Wraithlords and War Walkers.

Most of the weapon designs changed significantly, particularly shuriken and lasweapons, and the Guardian plate armour style was applied to all infantry (and later to Wraiththings) - it's a much wider-ranging change than you describe, quite aside from changes in proportion.

The third edition style Aspect Warriors were awful and almost all of them (Swooping Hawks being the exception) were reverted back to the original Rogue Trader style by Jes Goodwin for the fourth edition Eldar codex.

Pretty sure only the Dark Reapers were changed - indeed if I'm remembering correctly not all the Aspects received 3rd Ed. models, instead there were Reapers, Banshees and Scorpions in 3rd Ed. and all the rest - along with new Reapers - were new to 4th Edition. To this day the Banshees and Scorpions still have the 3rd Ed. models (the latter of which aren't nearly as bad as GW's genius for painting models in a way that shows them to worst effect suggests, but could stand improvement - the oversized pistols being a big offender).

Rogue Trader and second edition Eldar infantry do not look out of place at all as result.  I use them all the time and apart from the newer models being slightly larger, the differences are negligible.

You're not bothered that death spinners are larger than wraithcannon and make reaper launchers look like popguns? Or that Spiders as models are half as wide again as a Dark Reaper with purportedly equally thick armour?

Going back to the craftworlds, I maintain that it's the narrative of the craftworld and the colour scheme that ought to be the key factor in determining choice.  Those were the elements that persuaded me to opt for Alaitoc when I was young, long before any of the craftworlds had any different rules.  The days of my playing any of the craftwolds are long since over for me, and I suspect that more players these days choose their army based on the bonuses the army receives, but it would be nice to think that some players still choose their craftworld for reasons which go beyond the rules.

What of those of us who simply have custom Craftworlds, especially if they've developed a backstory that demands a focus on unit types - such as grav-tanks or fliers - that don't have an official Craftworld analogue? Eldar have never had very well-differentiated Craftworld backgrounds - even in the Craftworld sub-Codex they had only a page on each and their specialisations are based entirely around unit type rather than any kind of cultural distinction. As an old-time Epic fan I've always liked to think of my 40k army as representing part of a Host-level formation, specialised along similar lines - and frankly that's all the Craftworld buffs here do, other than demanding a colour scheme-based keyword. Plus it adds variety in practice if you can take a Guardian-based army to one game and use an appropriate bonus, and a Wind Rider host to another.

Sure, a grav-tank army will happily pretend to be Alaitoc because all its units can stay far enough from the enemy to get the bonus, but it's not very flavourful and something vehicle-specific would be more welcome.

[Blazinghand]

More detailed thoughts, now that I have chewed on the saim-hann reveal a bit.

It looks like a pretty direct buff to a mobile army. Scatter Lasers or other heavies are now stronger on jetbikes and vypers, and the bonus to assault aspect warriors (whether transported or Shining Spears) getting stuck in more easily is very good. Assuming there is also a rebalance of Twin Shuriken Catapult price, there will now be a significant boost to run just about every jetbike unit in the Eldar arsenal: Vypers, Windriders with every loadout, and Shining Spear.

"Considerable" point reductions for jetbikes and Scatter Lasers are both correct, imo. Scatter Laser isn't actually better than Shuriken Cannon, just different, and sometimes it is worse (especially on jetbikes). I haven't taken a Scatter Laser even once since the start of 8e, and I run many potential platforms for them: Wraithlords, Falcon, Wave Serpent, Night Spinner, Jetbikes, Guardians with weapon platforms, etc. I have never felt it was the right choice. With a different points cost this may change.

Shoot+Scoot has returned! this is great. The fact that seemingly any unit can do it if you spend the CP also seems good. Obviously the ideal scenario is jetbikers jumping in and out of LoS, but I am guessing we will see other applications as well.

Looks like an exciting revelation overall.

My guess, like everyone else, is Alaitoc for the 12" -1 to hit rule, but I'll be eager to see if they will have options like Pathfinders.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

While it was inevitable I'd also have preferred not to have 'Craftworld traits' but instead had 'Warhost traits' that don't demand a specific paintscheme, and allow traits for unit types not associated with a particular Craftworld - while Iyanden can work for a generic Spirit Host, Swordwind for an Aspect Host, Saim-Hann for a Windrider Host and Ulthwe for a Warhost, there's nothing for vehicles, either generically or grav-tanks specifically.

There is nothing forcing anyone into painting their models because they are fielding a specific craftworld rules set.  It's not even a matter of etiquette for your opponent.  You can paint the models how you see fit, as long as you make it clear which models are in which detachment that have which craftworld.

The third edition style Aspect Warriors were awful and almost all of them (Swooping Hawks being the exception) were reverted back to the original Rogue Trader style by Jes Goodwin for the fourth edition Eldar codex.

Pretty sure only the Dark Reapers were changed - indeed if I'm remembering correctly not all the Aspects received 3rd Ed. models, instead there were Reapers, Banshees and Scorpions in 3rd Ed. and all the rest - along with new Reapers - were new to 4th Edition. To this day the Banshees and Scorpions still have the 3rd Ed. models (the latter of which aren't nearly as bad as GW's genius for painting models in a way that shows them to worst effect suggests, but could stand improvement - the oversized pistols being a big offender).

You would be remembering incorrectly.

All of the Aspect Warriors, minus the Warp Spiders and maybe Shining Spears, had models to update their look from 2nd edition to 3rd edition.  The Striking Scorpion models had buck-teeth and a large scorpion tail coming from the back of their helmets, Howling Banshees were made to look more fluid, Swooping Hawks went from the wings coming out to the sides to coming straight out from their back, Dire Avengers were made to use the new Guardian body with a pewter head, Fire Dragons were made to be bigger, and Dark Reapers were made into the awesome skull-helmeted models.

When the 4th edition codex was released, they redesigned the Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, Dire Avengers, Fire Dragons, and Dark Reapers to the models that they have today.  The Swooping Hawks, Warp Spiders, and Shining Spears were not touched.

Sure, a grav-tank army will happily pretend to be Alaitoc because all its units can stay far enough from the enemy to get the bonus, but it's not very flavourful and something vehicle-specific would be more welcome.

You are focusing too much on the fact that they are "Craftworld" traits.  If you are building your own craftworld and have them use their own special style of fighting that focuses around Falcons and want to use the Alaitoc rules to get the bonus, go ahead and do it.  You can simply say that you are using that rule set because it most closely resembles some advanced holo-field technology that is specific to that one special craftworld.

The rules are there to add flavour to the armies.  You can make the fluff what ever you want so that the rules make sense.

[Rhyleth]

The third edition style Aspect Warriors were awful and almost all of them (Swooping Hawks being the exception) were reverted back to the original Rogue Trader style by Jes Goodwin for the fourth edition Eldar codex.

Pretty sure only the Dark Reapers were changed - indeed if I'm remembering correctly not all the Aspects received 3rd Ed. models, instead there were Reapers, Banshees and Scorpions in 3rd Ed. and all the rest - along with new Reapers - were new to 4th Edition. To this day the Banshees and Scorpions still have the 3rd Ed. models (the latter of which aren't nearly as bad as GW's genius for painting models in a way that shows them to worst effect suggests, but could stand improvement - the oversized pistols being a big offender).

You would be remembering incorrectly.

All of the Aspect Warriors, minus the Warp Spiders and maybe Shining Spears, had models to update their look from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. The Striking Scorpion models had buck-teeth and a large scorpion tail coming from the back of their helmets

Gah! Ah yes, now I remember why I had mercifully forgotten the existence of those figures. Spears were new to 3rd Ed. - though they were in the 2nd Ed. Codex they never received models - and have never been updated.

When the 4th edition codex was released, they redesigned the Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, Dire Avengers, Fire Dragons, and Dark Reapers to the models that they have today.

Unfortunately the Reapers still have the awful skull-headed helmets (there appears to have been a typo in your post). I'm also sadly stuck with the 3rd Ed. models (as I prefer metal to resin) and those things are tiny - maybe the Spiders are better-proportioned relative to the newer figures.

Sure, a grav-tank army will happily pretend to be Alaitoc because all its units can stay far enough from the enemy to get the bonus, but it's not very flavourful and something vehicle-specific would be more welcome.

You are focusing too much on the fact that they are "Craftworld" traits.  If you are building your own craftworld and have them use their own special style of fighting that focuses around Falcons and want to use the Alaitoc rules to get the bonus, go ahead and do it.  You can simply say that you are using that rule set because it most closely resembles some advanced holo-field technology that is specific to that one special craftworld.

The rules are there to add flavour to the armies.  You can make the fluff what ever you want so that the rules make sense.
[/quote]

It's the flavour that's at issue. It's perfectly flavourful to have a Windrider Host - an established general Eldar formation that eventually gave its name to the jetbike unit - instead of Saim-Hann, but fits better whatever fluff you decide upon for the army. Why is it better to decide that your Saim-Hann army represents, say, a Daal-En Windrider Host than that your Windrider Host represents a Saim-Hann army?

The lack of a grav-tank doctrine isn't at issue because you can't interpret one of the existing doctrines as representing it, it's at issue because it doesn't provide any specific bonus that rewards a grav-tank composition as the other unit doctrines do, either directly by referencing the Grav-Tank keyword or generically by providing a bonus that's most effective with those vehicles. As it is the Eldar are short of doctrines relative to other armies - they could always have decided that, say, Yme-Loc is a tank-focused Craftworld and added an Yme-Loc trait.

For instance a grav-tank doctrine makes much more sense with a 'move and fire heavy weapons' rule than a biker doctrine does. Bikes only have access to one heavy weapon as it is.

Perhaps a specific rule allowing a unit with the Grav-Tank keyword to move after embarking a unit, even if that unit has already moved, to reflect a mobile warfare focus. For something more generic, maybe a rule that units with a damage table ignore the BS penalty for the first level of damage, to reflect superior targeting systems. Or a rule allowing rerolled misses with heavy weapons, to compensate for the lower overall firepower of a tank-based army given that Eldar tanks cost a lot and rarely have more than one primary weapon system. There are many possible options they could have settled on.

[magenb]

Looks like shoot + scoot is back, and it can apply to anything!

At the moment I read that as running out of ideas on ways to spend command points. Useful, yeah, but since everything moves so darn quick now, it typically means what ever is going to shoot at your unit just has to move. It will be interesting to see what has happened to battle focus though.


OK so scatter lasers getting a point reduction... big whoop, unless it gets an AP modifier its not that useful. The shuriken cannon is still a better all round option, which can already move and shoot without penalty.. so Wild-host is only really an effective buff for spears and vypers as they now get the biker keyword.


Vypers are physically large and as a unit need very large LOS blocking terrain. So how useful they are will be terrain dependant... which most armies have a way of getting around any way, DS, fliers or just straight up speed. It will be interesting to see how the points work out now, I would like to see them back on the table again.




Although I'm most excited about the Fire Prism changes being "vastly improved", will Eldar finally get a tank that can put out 30 shots as well?

[Blazinghand]

OK so scatter lasers getting a point reduction... big whoop, unless it gets an AP modifier its not that useful. The shuriken cannon is still a better all round option, which can already move and shoot without penalty.. so Wild-host is only really an effective buff for spears and vypers as they now get the biker keyword.

If we ignore points cost and compare Scatter Laser and Shuriken Cannon:

• Scatter laser shoots more, but Shuriken Cannon effectively has -1 AP on average.
• Scatter laser has more range.
• Shuriken Cannon can move and fire without penalty, or Advance and fire with a minor penalty (or no penalty, depending on the platform)

In my view, the extra shooting from Scatter Laser tends to be counteracted by penalty of moving and firing, and that's not even accounting for the AP. Against heavily armored enemies like Marines, the AP from Shuriken Cannon more than makes up for the lower rate of fire.

So where can Scatter Laser shine? Well, two places in my opinion:

1. Range. Shuriken Cannon, when fired, is always within range to receive small arms fire. A Scatter Laser user at max range will not receive return fire from small arms. This might not seem very important on something that is going to get up close and personal regardless (like a Wave Serpent) but for Jetbikes this can matter.
2. Effectiveness vs very very lightly armored enemies, or enemies who rely on invuln saves. The Shuriken Cannon's advantage against armored enemies is not as important or is irrelevant compared to the Scatter Laser's greater rate of fire against an enemy like Orkz (haha, pierced my armor? The joke's on you, i don't have any) or Harlequins.

But it can also shine in another way, if its price is reduced:

3. Cost.

If a Scatter Laser instead of costing more than a Shuriken Cannon, would cost less, we would see it used a lot. For example, let's say (I would be very surprised if this were the case) it cost 7 points less than a Shuriken Cannon. By swapping from twin Shuriken Cannons to twin Scatter Lasers on a Wave Serpent, I could save 14 points, while retaining similar firepower against many targets.  Now, this is probably not what it will cost, but it's a useful thing to keep in mind.

So Scatter Laser is not strictly worse than Shuriken Cannon, and with a price reduction (as GW has said is coming) I think that there will be times it will be useful.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

Unfortunately the Reapers still have the awful skull-headed helmets (there appears to have been a typo in your post). I'm also sadly stuck with the 3rd Ed. models (as I prefer metal to resin) and those things are tiny - maybe the Spiders are better-proportioned relative to the newer figures.

To be clear, these are the Dark Reaper models that I am referring to:


So, no typo.  These models are superior to the ones they have on the market now, and superior to the second edition models as well.

It's the flavour that's at issue. It's perfectly flavourful to have a Windrider Host - an established general Eldar formation that eventually gave its name to the jetbike unit - instead of Saim-Hann, but fits better whatever fluff you decide upon for the army. Why is it better to decide that your Saim-Hann army represents, say, a Daal-En Windrider Host than that your Windrider Host represents a Saim-Hann army?

Why is it so hard to make the adjustment and say that "This is a Daal-En Windrider Host.  Rules wise it follows the Saim-Hann entry"?

GW always has formed their rules around the primary force that uses a certain style, and then allows for off-shoots to use the same rules.  Perfect example are Space Marine Successor Chapters.  There is no point in demanding that Angels of Absolution get their own specific doctrine when they fight exactly as the Dark Angels do.  Paint the models different, and say that they are the successor.

The lack of a grav-tank doctrine isn't at issue because you can't interpret one of the existing doctrines as representing it, it's at issue because it doesn't provide any specific bonus that rewards a grav-tank composition as the other unit doctrines do, either directly by referencing the Grav-Tank keyword or generically by providing a bonus that's most effective with those vehicles. As it is the Eldar are short of doctrines relative to other armies - they could always have decided that, say, Yme-Loc is a tank-focused Craftworld and added an Yme-Loc trait.

For instance a grav-tank doctrine makes much more sense with a 'move and fire heavy weapons' rule than a biker doctrine does. Bikes only have access to one heavy weapon as it is.

Perhaps a specific rule allowing a unit with the Grav-Tank keyword to move after embarking a unit, even if that unit has already moved, to reflect a mobile warfare focus. For something more generic, maybe a rule that units with a damage table ignore the BS penalty for the first level of damage, to reflect superior targeting systems. Or a rule allowing rerolled misses with heavy weapons, to compensate for the lower overall firepower of a tank-based army given that Eldar tanks cost a lot and rarely have more than one primary weapon system. There are many possible options they could have settled on.

Really, if you are unable to look at the attributes and not find a way to apply them to a armoured force, that is more of your issue than anything else.  Assuming Alaitoc gets the -1 to hit, you can use that to represent an advanced holo-field.  And how you are able to look at Iyanden without seeing the huge benefit to tanks is beyond me.

Just because there is no one that specifically says "this works on tanks," does not mean that they won't benefit.

You're complaining about a codex where you have been given a sliver of information and saying it is all bad because it doesn't fit your vision.  Either take the information that is available and find a way to adapt it to your vision, or wait for the codex to see if you can actually do what you want to do.

[magenb]

If we ignore points cost and compare Scatter Laser and Shuriken Cannon:

• Scatter laser shoots more, but Shuriken Cannon effectively has -1 AP on average.
• Scatter laser has more range.
• Shuriken Cannon can move and fire without penalty, or Advance and fire with a minor penalty (or no penalty, depending on the platform)

So where can Scatter Laser shine? Well, two places in my opinion:

1. Range. Shuriken Cannon, when fired, is always within range to receive small arms fire. A Scatter Laser user at max range will not receive return fire from small arms. This might not seem very important on something that is going to get up close and personal regardless (like a Wave Serpent) but for Jetbikes this can matter.
2. Effectiveness vs very very lightly armored enemies, or enemies who rely on invuln saves. The Shuriken Cannon's advantage against armored enemies is not as important or is irrelevant compared to the Scatter Laser's greater rate of fire against an enemy like Orkz (haha, pierced my armor? The joke's on you, i don't have any) or Harlequins.

But it can also shine in another way, if its price is reduced:

3. Cost.

If a Scatter Laser instead of costing more than a Shuriken Cannon, would cost less, we would see it used a lot. For example, let's say (I would be very surprised if this were the case) it cost 7 points less than a Shuriken Cannon. By swapping from twin Shuriken Cannons to twin Scatter Lasers on a Wave Serpent, I could save 14 points, while retaining similar firepower against many targets.  Now, this is probably not what it will cost, but it's a useful thing to keep in mind.

So Scatter Laser is not strictly worse than Shuriken Cannon, and with a price reduction (as GW has said is coming) I think that there will be times it will be useful.

The problem with Range, is this is SPAR.. I mean 8th ed Most deployment scenarios can have units very close at the start, pin point DS, open topped transports, super fast assault troops, etc, combines to make range beyond 24" almost pointless, now.  Maybe a better way of saying that, it has become rather situational, where previous editions you could reasonably rely on keeping at a distance for a while.

Point cost, would I take them at 7 points... it would make me really think about, especially if I'm tight on points. At 10 points, no, shuriken is still better more often. At their current (index) cost but with -1 AP.... well that's where things get interesting.

[Rhyleth]

Unfortunately the Reapers still have the awful skull-headed helmets (there appears to have been a typo in your post). I'm also sadly stuck with the 3rd Ed. models (as I prefer metal to resin) and those things are tiny - maybe the Spiders are better-proportioned relative to the newer figures.

To be clear, these are the Dark Reaper models that I am referring to:
(Image removed from quote.)

So, no typo.  These models are superior to the ones they have on the market now, and superior to the second edition models as well.

Those are the ones I have, which I think are the 3rd Ed figures. They're terrible and poorly-scaled - the ones available now aren't much of an improvement but have a bit of heft to them rather than actually being smaller than the other Aspects. The RT helmets were as comical as they were conical, but they were a better idea stylistically - a death mask on an Eldar helmet rather than a poorly-proportioned full skull helmet (problem with skull helmets, if you want them to actually look like skulls, is that they have to look like skulls only larger, with the end result that you have a model with a too-large head).

Why is it so hard to make the adjustment and say that "This is a Daal-En Windrider Host.  Rules wise it follows the Saim-Hann entry"?

In rules-lawyer terms it doesn't technically work for a start, since the rule explicitly only applies to units with the Saim-Hann keyword. The issue is not that it can't be made to work, but that it's equally easy to say "This is a Saim-Hann army. Rules-wise it follows the Windrider Host entry" and that that's simply a better and more elegant solution for a generic Codex.

GW always has formed their rules around the primary force that uses a certain style, and then allows for off-shoots to use the same rules.

And that precedent itself leads to flavour difficulties. Different Craftworlds aren't successors of one another, they just have comparable military formations. If Eldar Craftworlds had specific traits like the Death Company or whatever that demanded a specific faction rule that would be one thing, but the Eldar Craftworlds are much more generic - they always have been thinly-disguised stand-ins for armies favouring specific unit types that are generally available to all Eldar armies.

Really, if you are unable to look at the attributes and not find a way to apply them to a armoured force, that is more of your issue than anything else.  Assuming Alaitoc gets the -1 to hit, you can use that to represent an advanced holo-field.  And how you are able to look at Iyanden without seeing the huge benefit to tanks is beyond me.

Just because there is no one that specifically says "this works on tanks," does not mean that they won't benefit.

Once again you're missing the point entirely. You could as easily argue that Saim-Hann doesn't need a doctrine because Iyanden is good for bike armies, thanks to their small unit sizes, or that because Biel-Tan gives a blanket bonus to shuriken weapons there's no need for an Ulthwe doctrine. Having a specific doctrine that works with bikers allows a bike army to play differently from an Iyanden one, whether it references the unit type or not. There's plenty of space to explore doctrines that allow different playstyles - the Eldar have unusually few with only five.

Incidentally, Iyanden offers essentially no benefit to tank armies that aren't just Wave Serpents stuffed with Wraithguard - the damage table rule explicitly applies only to Wraith Constructs and the morale rule is irrelevant to things that come in units of one.

You're complaining about a codex where you have been given a sliver of information and saying it is all bad because it doesn't fit your vision.  Either take the information that is available and find a way to adapt it to your vision, or wait for the codex to see if you can actually do what you want to do.

I'm doing nothing more than pointing out that there was a more elegant way to present a specific feature of the Codex, one that would work better with both fluff and flavour and would permit a wider range of doctrine options without requiring any changes to the new rules. I've said nothing about the content of the rules changes beyond expressing optimism.

[Blazinghand]

Incidentally, Iyanden offers essentially no benefit to tank armies that aren't just Wave Serpents stuffed with Wraithguard - the damage table rule explicitly applies only to Wraith Constructs and the morale rule is irrelevant to things that come in units of one.

This is false. Re-read the Stoic Endurance Craftworld Attribute: Craftworld Focus: Iyanden – Warhammer Community

This attribute does not at any point reference "Wraith Constructs" and by wording it applies to any unit with a damage chart, Wraith Construct or no. In a paragraph following the rules screenshot, they specifically say "Stoic Endurance helps your tanks" so I think we can safely agree that Iyanden's Stoic Endurance attribute offers a benefit to tanks.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

Why is it so hard to make the adjustment and say that "This is a Daal-En Windrider Host.  Rules wise it follows the Saim-Hann entry"?

In rules-lawyer terms it doesn't technically work for a start, since the rule explicitly only applies to units with the Saim-Hann keyword. The issue is not that it can't be made to work, but that it's equally easy to say "This is a Saim-Hann army. Rules-wise it follows the Windrider Host entry" and that that's simply a better and more elegant solution for a generic Codex.

That makes no sense what so ever.  Your army list that you write out has absolutely dick to do with how your army is painted or the fluff that you wish to follow.  Yes, it says that the rules apply to the Saim-Hann keyword.  So give your Daal-en Windrider Host the Saim-Hann keyword.  Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?  It follows the age old tradition of "counts-as," and no where in the gaming community are you ever going to find someone that has an issue with a custom craftworld using the rules from one of the major craftworlds.  And if you do, cut that person out of your life; you don't need that kind of negativity.

GW always has formed their rules around the primary force that uses a certain style, and then allows for off-shoots to use the same rules.

And that precedent itself leads to flavour difficulties. Different Craftworlds aren't successors of one another, they just have comparable military formations. If Eldar Craftworlds had specific traits like the Death Company or whatever that demanded a specific faction rule that would be one thing, but the Eldar Craftworlds are much more generic - they always have been thinly-disguised stand-ins for armies favouring specific unit types that are generally available to all Eldar armies.

So... Eldar are special little snow flakes then where each one is different and doesn't conform to the fighting styles of the major Craftworlds?  I'm starting to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Eldar are more generic, which means they would be more flexible in adapting to the various fighting styles that major Craftworlds are famous for.  But because they are not successor chapters, it makes no sense for them to be able to adapt their fighting styles?  You do understand that that is exactly what you are advocating right now, right?

Really, if you are unable to look at the attributes and not find a way to apply them to a armoured force, that is more of your issue than anything else.  Assuming Alaitoc gets the -1 to hit, you can use that to represent an advanced holo-field.  And how you are able to look at Iyanden without seeing the huge benefit to tanks is beyond me.

Just because there is no one that specifically says "this works on tanks," does not mean that they won't benefit.

Once again you're missing the point entirely. You could as easily argue that Saim-Hann doesn't need a doctrine because Iyanden is good for bike armies, thanks to their small unit sizes, or that because Biel-Tan gives a blanket bonus to shuriken weapons there's no need for an Ulthwe doctrine. Having a specific doctrine that works with bikers allows a bike army to play differently from an Iyanden one, whether it references the unit type or not. There's plenty of space to explore doctrines that allow different playstyles - the Eldar have unusually few with only five.

I can't even discern a coherent thought out of... that.

Incidentally, Iyanden offers essentially no benefit to tank armies that aren't just Wave Serpents stuffed with Wraithguard - the damage table rule explicitly applies only to Wraith Constructs and the morale rule is irrelevant to things that come in units of one.

As Blazinghang mentioned, there is no phrasing in the preview that even slightly indicates it is wraith constructs only.

You're complaining about a codex where you have been given a sliver of information and saying it is all bad because it doesn't fit your vision.  Either take the information that is available and find a way to adapt it to your vision, or wait for the codex to see if you can actually do what you want to do.

I'm doing nothing more than pointing out that there was a more elegant way to present a specific feature of the Codex, one that would work better with both fluff and flavour and would permit a wider range of doctrine options without requiring any changes to the new rules. I've said nothing about the content of the rules changes beyond expressing optimism.

Considering you are hyper-focused on the whole Windrider Host idea, I'm sure part of the reason why they don't follow that is because it doesn't fully work without going down the road of the 4th edition Space Marine Chapter Traits and Imperial Guard Doctrines.  in other words, "Here is a massive list of rules that you get to choose from.  Have fun!"

The game doesn't need that level of crap any more.  Be glad they are adding this level of customization at all.  You could have just been stuck with the past couple methods of theme for an army where it was simply the models you took and nothing else.

[Irisado]

Most of the weapon designs changed significantly, particularly shuriken and lasweapons, and the Guardian plate armour style was applied to all infantry (and later to Wraiththings) - it's a much wider-ranging change than you describe, quite aside from changes in proportion.

The changes to las weapons only really affected Swooping Hawks, and I avoid this problem by using my Rogue Trader Swooping Hawk squad.  These models are far more elegant than the awful third edition sculpts in any event, but again this is subjective, so if you take a different view that's fair enough.  Your characterisation of Shuriken weapons seems exaggerated to me though.  The differences are more subtle than you're suggesting, at least they always have been to my eye.

Pretty sure only the Dark Reapers were changed - indeed if I'm remembering correctly not all the Aspects received 3rd Ed. models, instead there were Reapers, Banshees and Scorpions in 3rd Ed. and all the rest - along with new Reapers - were new to 4th Edition. To this day the Banshees and Scorpions still have the 3rd Ed. models (the latter of which aren't nearly as bad as GW's genius for painting models in a way that shows them to worst effect suggests, but could stand improvement - the oversized pistols being a big offender).

GML has already cleared this up, but just to add that I would agree with concerns about out of proportion weapons and other design flaws with the third edition Aspect Warriors.  This, in my view, is why they were so swiftly replaced by new sculpts for fourth edition.

You're not bothered that death spinners are larger than wraithcannon and make reaper launchers look like popguns? Or that Spiders as models are half as wide again as a Dark Reaper with purportedly equally thick armour?

I'm, not bothered in the least. In the first instance, you're not comparing like with like.  Dark Reapers had missile launchers in Rogue Trader and second edition.  This is part of the reason why they look different.  In any event, the difference is not enough to concern me.  As for Warp Spiders, they are bulky because of the Warp Jump Generator in their backs, so they're bound to look bulkier than Dark Reapers for that reason.

What of those of us who simply have custom Craftworlds, especially if they've developed a backstory that demands a focus on unit types - such as grav-tanks or fliers - that don't have an official Craftworld analogue?

There's no issue here that I can see.  You can just opt for the counts as option that GML outlined in his answer to you and use narrative to make the rest of the distinctions.  You can impose your own restrictions on the types of units that you can take, for example.  A group of us built a whole path of command concept around this very concept when this forum used to have multiple PoCs.  It's through creating this narrative that it becomes possible to differentiate craftworld backgrounds.

As an old-time Epic fan I've always liked to think of my 40k army as representing part of a Host-level formation, specialised along similar lines - and frankly that's all the Craftworld buffs here do, other than demanding a colour scheme-based keyword. Plus it adds variety in practice if you can take a Guardian-based army to one game and use an appropriate bonus, and a Wind Rider host to another.

As a fellow Epic player from the Space Marine era myself, it's important to remember that the only distinguishing features for craftworlds back then were the free cards which you could take.  Otherwise, the craftworlds used the same units.  Subsequent editions of Epic differentiate the craftworlds more, but these are mostly developments by the player base, not by GW.  On that basis, I think that you're expecting a bit too much from the forthcoming codex.


On the Scatter Laser debate.  Range is a big issue for me, especially when fighting opposing armies with a lot of 24" weapons and assault oriented armies.  I want to keep fragile units, such as Guardians with weapon platforms, well away from these sorts of threats, so the extra range boost offered by the Scatter Laser becomes much more attractive for me if the cost is coming down.

[Rhyleth]

That makes no sense what so ever.  Your army list that you write out has absolutely dick to do with how your army is painted or the fluff that you wish to follow.  Yes, it says that the rules apply to the Saim-Hann keyword.  So give your Daal-en Windrider Host the Saim-Hann keyword.  Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

This is where I become convinced you're arguing purely for the sake of arguing. Do you genuinely not understand that all I did was make a mild point that they could have used exactly the same rules, with exactly the same templating, and just given them a name that was a better flavour fit? That you can do X is entirely irrelevant - there's no necessity for them to have forced players to use the 'count as' solution at all.

I'm really not sure why pointing out that a different naming convention would have been better has promoted multiple posts of counter-argument.

GW always has formed their rules around the primary force that uses a certain style, and then allows for off-shoots to use the same rules.

And that precedent itself leads to flavour difficulties. Different Craftworlds aren't successors of one another, they just have comparable military formations. If Eldar Craftworlds had specific traits like the Death Company or whatever that demanded a specific faction rule that would be one thing, but the Eldar Craftworlds are much more generic - they always have been thinly-disguised stand-ins for armies favouring specific unit types that are generally available to all Eldar armies.

So... Eldar are special little snow flakes then where each one is different and doesn't conform to the fighting styles of the major Craftworlds?  I'm starting to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.[/quote]

I'm not even sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to be working backwards. The major Craftworlds aren't meaningfully distinct entities like Space Marine Chapters - they were created as exemplars for a particular style of army and never evolved beyond that. With that background it simply doesn't make a lot of sense to have 'Craftworld Biel-Tan' instead of 'Aspect Host' as the doctrine flavour, because Biel-Tan is just an example of a Craftworld that makes a lot of use of Aspect Hosts.

Yes, you can use the 'count as' approach, but then if you go that route they could just have named the book 'Codex Biel-Tan' and you can just count your army from any other Craftworld as Biel-Tan (didn't they do exactly that once with the Ultramarines)? It doesn't seem obviously preferable to do that instead of having a generic Craftworlds Codex.

(Image removed from quote.)
I can't even discern a coherent thought out of... that.

I'm not sure where the difficulty lies. Do you have difficulty with the concept that Swooping Hawks can have different rules from Dark Reapers and that those make them play differently? If not, why is this any more complicated?

Maybe an off-the-cuff example would illustrate the point better:

Mobile Warfare

ASURYANI units with the Battle Focus ability are able to advance and fire with heavy weapons, with the penalty for moving and shooting. Units with the GRAV-TANK keyword do not suffer a penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons unless they advance.

Additionally, the Fire and Fade Stratagem can be used more than once per Shooting phase so long as every targeted unit has the FLY or GRAV-TANK keyword.

Hey presto, a sixth doctrine that promotes mobile, vehicle-based shooting builds, and doesn't interfere in any way with any of the existing options. Once again I fail to see any issue with simply providing useful alternative options.

Incidentally, Iyanden offers essentially no benefit to tank armies that aren't just Wave Serpents stuffed with Wraithguard - the damage table rule explicitly applies only to Wraith Constructs and the morale rule is irrelevant to things that come in units of one.

As Blazinghang mentioned, there is no phrasing in the preview that even slightly indicates it is wraith constructs only.[/quote]

Okay, seems I was remembering one of the other previewed Iyanden rules.

The game doesn't need that level of crap any more.  Be glad they are adding this level of customization at all.  You could have just been stuck with the past couple methods of theme for an army where it was simply the models you took and nothing else.

I'd be fine without any doctrine system - I simply don't see a need for the one that exists to have the flavour it does. Space Marines and Chaos have something like eight doctrines each to choose from - why would a sixth for Eldar be excessive?

a fellow Epic player from the Space Marine era myself, it's important to remember that the only distinguishing features for craftworlds back then were the free cards which you could take.  Otherwise, the craftworlds used the same units.  Subsequent editions of Epic differentiate the craftworlds more, but these are mostly developments by the player base, not by GW.  On that basis, I think that you're expecting a bit too much from the forthcoming codex.

The Craftworlds still use the same units and have no uniquely distinguishing features other than their preferred army formations. The one effort made to give Craftworlds distinct units was dropped in later editions - even the Seer Council became a generic 'Warlock Conclave'. We're told the that one of the super-heavy grav-tanks is now considered unique to Biel-Tan, but as it doesn't have a 40k model that's not relevant to distinguishing Craftworlds.

Inasmuch as their formations are described as unique to the Craftworld in the background, this isn't well-reflected in the rules. The Swordwind is not just an Aspect Host - it's an Aspect Host that emphasises transports and mobile warfare, for instance. The rules given are simply a better fit for a generic Aspect Host. The only concession to something flavour-specific to a particular Craftworld is the Saim-Hann charge bonus, which is a bit out of place in a generic biker host.

[Lord of Winter and War]

I don't really see why Grav-Tanks need anything specific. I like the traits for the different craftworlds, as they are flexible enough to apply to all units in your army (besides Samn-Hann and their silly bikes). I believe traits should give flavour to the army, and something to build around, but not dictate what units you take.

I'd be fine without any doctrine system - I simply don't see a need for the one that exists to have the flavour it does. Space Marines and Chaos have something like eight doctrines each to choose from - why would a sixth for Eldar be excessive?

Not really a contest to see who has more. Death Guard has only one trait, for example. Marines have more, as there are rules for all the main established legions/chapters.

Eldar have the 5 established craftworlds (besides maybe Beil-Tan, who don't have a craftworld anymore...too soon?)

The old models are an issue, but all pewter/ Finecast units need to be re-made into plastic. Eldar have a particularly vintage model range. The fact the aspects don't really apply themselves to be multi-part plastic kits also hurts them.

[Irisado]

The Craftworlds still use the same units and have no uniquely distinguishing features other than their preferred army formations. The one effort made to give Craftworlds distinct units was dropped in later editions - even the Seer Council became a generic 'Warlock Conclave'. We're told the that one of the super-heavy grav-tanks is now considered unique to Biel-Tan, but as it doesn't have a 40k model that's not relevant to distinguishing Craftworlds.

What's the problem with this?  If you want to make your army along craftworld lines, you can just choose units which fit that craftworld's narrative.  It seems very straightforward to me.

Inasmuch as their formations are described as unique to the Craftworld in the background, this isn't well-reflected in the rules. The Swordwind is not just an Aspect Host - it's an Aspect Host that emphasises transports and mobile warfare, for instance. The rules given are simply a better fit for a generic Aspect Host. The only concession to something flavour-specific to a particular Craftworld is the Saim-Hann charge bonus, which is a bit out of place in a generic biker host.

To make the Biel-Tan Swordwind host that you're talking about requires far too many vehicles that you could afford in a regular game of 40K anyway, so if wanted to create an accurate representation of that, you'd have to play Epic .  That said, you can make such an army on a smaller scale by just fielding a lot of Aspect Warriors mounted in Wave Serpents.

In essence, the new codex will have a few craftworld type bonuses, which are likely to feel rather generic to some.  I have no issue with that myself, since I believe the best way to reflect a craftworld army is through unit selection, rather than through the rules.

[Partninja]

So Alaitoc was as expected. I'm happy the rangers are cheaper now. Very easy to fit in any list at the cost. Very happy.

Also happy with the Prism change. Firing twice is makes then worth it. The linked beams is great as it doesn't increase a single shot profile. They all get to fire with rerolls.

[Lord of Winter and War]

60pts for a unit of rangers is unreal. That's incredible for what you get. Holy moly. Gonna call it as best troops choice in the book, hands down.

[vonny]

having played three games yestewrday, I can honestly say my weaithguard aren't going to make use of the stoic endurance trait. But hell it would help on the lords and the knight and the wave serpents - as well as the guardians

On Eldar only getting 5 traits - I'm happy we get traits at all. Death guard and grey knights got none - and while I'd be thrilled if my Lamenters got a seperate trait from the blood angels, I'm not counting on it.
But more importantly - who says ir's only these 5 traits? These are the traits they chose to show, there may actually be more in the codex.

I like that the traits have craftworld names associated with them too. Experienced players can mix and match and counts as all they want (use them as warhost traits, or windrider traits), while for players new to the game and the lore it may be a clear jumping off point to discover more about the craftworlds and what makes them what they are.

[Partninja]

60pts for a unit of rangers is unreal. That's incredible for what you get. Holy moly. Gonna call it as best troops choice in the book, hands down.

They were just as cheap in the pervious edition I believe. Just snipers didn't work the same.

They're far from the best troops choice as they're hyper specific in their purpose. Guardians and Avengers are more flexible.

[Lord of Winter and War]

60pts for a unit of rangers is unreal. That's incredible for what you get. Holy moly. Gonna call it as best troops choice in the book, hands down.

They were just as cheap in the pervious edition I believe. Just snipers didn't work the same.

They're far from the best troops choice as they're hyper specific in their purpose. Guardians and Avengers are more flexible.

180pts to fulfill the three troops in a Battalion detachment is really nice.