Topic: Eldar is next.

[The GrimSqueaker]

There are still beslubber ups now and again. I've received books (once rule book and another codex) on the Thursday and Friday prior to release.

[Irisado]

As the codex is out today, I've had to remove all posts containing rumoured rules, changes, and content in the codex posted on sites such as Twitch and You Tube, as these have now become printed fact, rather than speculation.  Please note that nobody has broken any forum rules, and we regularly clean up topics such as this when an actual codex comes out.

[Lord of Winter and War]

I'm pretty impressed by a bunch of the units with the points changes.

Swooping hawks fishing out 20 shots for 65pts is high on my list of units I'd expect to see more of. Any sub 100pt unit which can have such a huge damage output is good in my eyes.

I think eldar brigades are going to be the way to go, as the units are so cheap, and then you can capitalize on command points.

MSU is going to be huge, and I can definitely see illayden guardian blobs being great board control/Tarpit units, as they only loose one model for morale tests. Going to be really hard to shift, especially if you cast conceal and fortune on them!

[Rhyleth]

I think eldar brigades are going to be the way to go, as the units are so cheap, and then you can capitalize on command points.

As promising as all of this sounds in practice (still no notification that my Codex has shipped), this simply sounds wrong in principle. Eldar were always designed around the idea of being powerful and specialised, at the cost of being expensive and fragile. Having cheap units as a major Eldar advantage seems weird.

[Partninja]

It will really depend on the list you're building. Brigades and Battalions are good for the CP. However, Not all lists will require that much CP or can sink that many points even into cheap troops. If I'm making an all jetbike Saim-hann list I really don't have the need or room for taking that many troop units (Rangers or min Avengers). In my LGS games are over by turn two or three. Most lists weren't spending much more than six by then. I aim for six. Nine is about the max I could use given the lists I employ.

[Katamari Damacy]

I'm pretty impressed by a bunch of the units with the points changes.

Swooping hawks fishing out 20 shots for 65pts is high on my list of units I'd expect to see more of. Any sub 100pt unit which can have such a huge damage output is good in my eyes.

I was about to ask whether this was a typo in my german book, but Hawks seem crazy cheap now. And I played them in pretty much every list already with the Index Xenos 

[SeekingOne]

I think eldar brigades are going to be the way to go, as the units are so cheap, and then you can capitalize on command points.

As promising as all of this sounds in practice (still no notification that my Codex has shipped), this simply sounds wrong in principle. Eldar were always designed around the idea of being powerful and specialised, at the cost of being expensive and fragile. Having cheap units as a major Eldar advantage seems weird.

The way you worded it makes "specialised" sound like an advantage - while in fact specialisation is a disadvantage, and a huge one too.

I've been saying this literally for years since the early 5th edition of the game: the fact that many Eldar units are "specialised" is a huge drawback and a primary factor that decisively hampers performance of Eldar armies. And the only real way to compensate that drawback is to keep units relatively cheap, so that a player can field enough "specialised" units to cover all bases while still having a little redundancy. So I'm absolutely happy to see that someone in GW design studio has finally taken a step in the right direction (even though it might be purely by accident).

This is just the thing that I desperately hoped GW would do with 6th edition codex. Good to see it finally done, after mere 5 years

[haunt]

I think this post can be closed, since the codex is out now. 

[Rhyleth]

I think eldar brigades are going to be the way to go, as the units are so cheap, and then you can capitalize on command points.

As promising as all of this sounds in practice (still no notification that my Codex has shipped), this simply sounds wrong in principle. Eldar were always designed around the idea of being powerful and specialised, at the cost of being expensive and fragile. Having cheap units as a major Eldar advantage seems weird.

The way you worded it makes "specialised" sound like an advantage - while in fact specialisation is a disadvantage, and a huge one too.

I've been saying this literally for years since the early 5th edition of the game: the fact that many Eldar units are "specialised" is a huge drawback and a primary factor that decisively hampers performance of Eldar armies. And the only real way to compensate that drawback is to keep units relatively cheap, so that a player can field enough "specialised" units to cover all bases while still having a little redundancy. So I'm absolutely happy to see that someone in GW design studio has finally taken a step in the right direction (even though it might be purely by accident).

Hampers performance? From everything I've heard, Eldar remained a top tier army throughout my hiatus (from early 5th to 8th). It sounds as though during 7th they almost approached the absurdity of 2nd Ed.

Specialisation is absolutely a huge advantage the way 40k rules have always worked, which is probably why Eldar have been so consistently strong throughout the game's history. A point system inherently favours units that are most efficient for their points, and these are invariably the ones that do one specific thing very well. Other units pay for things they may not even use against certain targets - especially with 3rd Ed. onwards targeting rules that prevented units from splitting fire. You have entire squads paying for useless boltguns and the like.

Or look at Land Raiders, a unit that in its most basic form pays through the nose to be an armoured transport and not only has an anemic armament for its cost, it's armed with a heavy bolter and twin lascannon - a loadout that hasn't made any practical sense since 2nd Edition; they even had to give it Machine Spirit rules that let it split fire back in 3rd. It's no accident that GW added more specialised Land Raider variants, and that most of these outperform the traditional version.

More generalised Eldar units have frequently been the weakest in the army and the ones without a role. It certainly hasn't hurt that 40k is at heart a tactically very simple game without very many unit roles - there really aren't many bases to cover.

From my experience of 8th, this change was needed not because specialisation was an issue - although it's no longer that relevant in 8th since anything can kill anything else given enough firepower - but because Eldar fragility was. The army was designed in a context where units weren't routinely wiped out on turn 1. It doesn't matter how efficient the units or how strong their weapons if they only realistically get to use them if they go first.

[The GrimSqueaker]

I think this post can be closed, since the codex is out now. 

No need. It's general discussion now. However, since the Codex is out, no more spouting rules and/or points costs as if they were still rumours. Everyone knows the forum rules.

[Irisado]

I've been saying this literally for years since the early 5th edition of the game: the fact that many Eldar units are "specialised" is a huge drawback and a primary factor that decisively hampers performance of Eldar armies.

I've been disagreeing with you for just as many years about this point, so let's add one more for the road .

Specialisation is one of the defining features of the Eldar and it neither needs to be addressed nor does it require the sort of reductions that you have previously advocated in cost to mitigate it.  I have consistently found that specialisation is an advantage provided you get your unit selection, strategy, and tactics right.  As for the idea that specialisation hampers performance, it only does so if you expect Eldar units to have the sort of flexibility offered by generalists that characterise many Imperial armies.  Eldar do not play like this and if they are used in that way their performance will suffer.  Play them the way they are supposed to be played and this isn't a problem.  It has been that way since Rogue Trader.

[SeekingOne]

@Rhyleth

Hampers performance? From everything I've heard, Eldar remained a top tier army throughout my hiatus (from early 5th to 8th). It sounds as though during 7th they almost approached the absurdity of 2nd Ed.
Specialisation is absolutely a huge advantage the way 40k rules have always worked, which is probably why Eldar have been so consistently strong throughout the game's history.

Disagree with both statements. But first let me emphasise one important thing: I'm looking at the game and army composition from the point of view of building so-called "all-comers" lists, because that's how you have to play in tournaments, and that's how most players I know of tend to build their collections. Tailoring a list for each specific opponent is not really an option for me or anyone I know - even if we disregard tournaments, still each time a person goes to a club for a few games, they can't really carry all of their units with them to create any list on the fly.

With that out of the way -  firstly, specialisation is not an advantage at all for an all-comers list, for the reasons I'll explain below. And secondly, what you heard is partially wrong: Eldar have been totally weak throughout almost all of the 5th edition, down to the point of being practically unplayable in the end of 5th and in the beginning of 6th (before the 6th ed codex arrived).

But what's most important here for the topic in question is that at all times when Eldar were indeed performing really well, they owed their success almost exclusively to certain units/weapons that were both really strong (sometimes OP) AND absolutely not specialised, or at least about as far from being "specialised" as it ever gets. Namely:

3rd edition: Starcannons, Wraithlords, Seer Councils.
4th edition: Falcons and Harlequins.
5th edition: Seer Council (the only thing that made Eldar semi-playable on competitive level)
6th edition: Wave Serpents (due to OP rules for serpent shield), Wraithknights
7th edition: Scatter-bikes, Wraithknights

As you can see, all weapons and units in the list above have one thing in common: none of them was "specialised" because they all could handle an outstandingly wide variety of targets.

A point system inherently favours units that are most efficient for their points, and these are invariably the ones that do one specific thing very well. Other units pay for things they may not even use against certain targets - especially with 3rd Ed. onwards targeting rules that prevented units from splitting fire. You have entire squads paying for useless boltguns and the like.

This is a very abstract statement that doesn't take into account one important practical consideration: threat-management.
To put it simply, the role of a specialised unit and the kind of threat it poses is glaringly obvious to your opponent, making it super-easy for him to prioritise and decisively take out those elements of your force that are particularly threatening to him.

For example, an army of versatile units would be 5 SM Tactical squads with krak grenades and a meltagun in each one. The same thing but in "specialised" form would be an Eldar army of 4 squads of DAs (specialised anti-personnel) and 1 squad of 5 Fire Dragons (specialised anti-tank). The number of anti-tank guns in both forces is the same. Now tell me, against which of the two forces it would be easier to take out the AT section so that your vehicles would have pretty much free reign over the battlefield? I think the answer is obvious. But that's not all. Even if the Dragons do not get singled out and decisively destroyed in the first 1-2 turns, I'd argue that the SM force would still have comparatively easier time dealing with the enemy force that includes several vehicles, for that very reason: every SM squad has some AT capability, while Dragons are just one unit and they can't be in several places simultaneously, nor can they threaten more than 1 vehicle per turn.

Or look at Land Raiders, a unit that in its most basic form pays through the nose to be an armoured transport and not only has an anemic armament for its cost, it's armed with a heavy bolter and twin lascannon

From my perspective of a long-time tournament player, the only real problem of LR has always been the fact that LRs were way too easy to destroy for their huge point cost. E.g., by the end of 5th edition, when durability stopped being an issue for some time, there were several quite successful competitive SM builds featuring 2-3 LRs.

More generalised Eldar units have frequently been the weakest in the army and the ones without a role.

Not sure what specific units you're talking about. As I detailed above, the most decisively game-making Eldar units were always the most versatile ones.

It certainly hasn't hurt that 40k is at heart a tactically very simple game without very many unit roles - there really aren't many bases to cover.

As for bases to cover, they are not too numerous, but there still are a few:
- Anti-horde
- Anti-heavy infantry
- Anti-tank
- Anti-air (although this one has largely mingled with anti-tank in 8th)
- Objective control

Any experienced tournament player would tell you that the most valuable units are invariably those that can double-up in two or more different roles.
 

The army was designed in a context where units weren't routinely wiped out on turn 1. It doesn't matter how efficient the units or how strong their weapons if they only realistically get to use them if they go first.

Imho, the problem of an army taking some crippling damage on turn 1 just because it lost the first turn to the enemy has always been there. 8th edition mechanic has greatly emphasised it though.
Admittedly, fragility actually has a lot to do with the problem of specialisation. The fact that most Eldar units are fragile for their points makes it yet much easier for our opponents to destroy the key threats early on, rendering the rest of the army all but helpless. Yet I would insist that the root of the problem lies in the specialisation itself, not in the fragility. 40k is (and has always been) a game of crazy high damage output, and if your opponent really wants to destroy any one specific unit in your force, the unit will be destroyed. The only thing that helps counter this effect is target saturation - and that can only be achieved if all capabilities are spread out through your units as evenly as possible.

@Irisado

My arguments about the threat-management and target saturation above go to you as well

[Cavalier]

Yeah the specialization has been an enormous advantage for Eldar since 6th. The points (and delivery mechanisms, wave serpent, battle focus etc) were adjusted so that all the tools could be brought to an 1850pt game whereas in 5th that was not the case (IMO). The same transition has now been made with the codex for 8th.

Any areas where some redundancy may be needed (additional anti-tank for example) can be enhanced by wargear options on vehicles, or selection of psychic powers.

In 6th the points had been adjusted to do this and the delivery system the Wave Serpent ensured anything that couldn't deepstrike got exactly where it needed to go.

In 7th Eldar specialists became even better and utterly annihilated their chosen targets, but also had devastating versatility and thus became so hyper-efficient they dominated the game. With D-Scythes, Warp Spiders, Jetbikes, Hornets, Swooping Hawks etc. mowing down infantry, vehicles and even super heavies with equal ease. Hell even Swooping Hawks were wrecking vehicles 18" movement and strapping Haywires on to vehicles and flyers downing them with more ease than Fire Dragons. It was glorious, but absurd from a game balance point of view.

In 8th that versatility has been taken away due to the increased toughness of vehicle, and the classic challenge of creating a balanced list with built in redundancy. Whether its anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-character offensively or defensively finding resilience and finding deployment shenanigans, I've had no problem whatsoever in any of those departments in 6th, 7th, even with the Index and certainly now with the 8th ed codex.

[Fenris]

I think I should jump in here and say that I mostly agree with SeekingOne.

However the specialization was a double edged sword before 8th ed, not only bad.

You could have units with great focus on their task performing them with extreme precision, however loosing even a single model in a unit was still painful before 8th ed, but it was a trade-off.

The thing with 8th ed, is that all armies have gotten that extreme precision due to split fire everywhere, this does indirectly hurt eldar to a very high degree.
Because 5 units of tactical marines can fire their missiles at a wave serpent and simultaneously fire their bolters at the guardians, this was THE devastating change in pace that came with 8th ed.

In addition to this, all weapon costs skyrocketed and this was especially bad for eldar, because there was no discount on having their specializations.
With the new codex thankfully most of these discounts have been applied, the weird thing is GW choose to put most of these discounts on the model rather than the weapons/gear.

[Irisado]

And secondly, what you heard is partially wrong: Eldar have been totally weak throughout almost all of the 5th edition, down to the point of being practically unplayable in the end of 5th and in the beginning of 6th (before the 6th ed codex arrived).

Not in my experience.  It depends on the environment in which you play, so you can't turn that statement into a universal claim.  It is likely that Eldar strugged in fifth edition in the sort of tournaments in which you were playing, but outside of supposed 'top tier' tournaments, the problems were not really any more significant for Eldar than they were for other armies which couldn't amass enough long ranged anti-tank fire power.  The problem here was not, therefore, one of Eldar specialisation, but of the overall durability of vehicles.

But what's most important here for the topic in question is that at all times when Eldar were indeed performing really well, they owed their success almost exclusively to certain units/weapons that were both really strong (sometimes OP) AND absolutely not specialised, or at least about as far from being "specialised" as it ever gets. Namely:

3rd edition: Starcannons, Wraithlords, Seer Councils.
4th edition: Falcons and Harlequins.
5th edition: Seer Council (the only thing that made Eldar semi-playable on competitive level)
6th edition: Wave Serpents (due to OP rules for serpent shield), Wraithknights
7th edition: Scatter-bikes, Wraithknights

As you can see, all weapons and units in the list above have one thing in common: none of them was "specialised" because they all could handle an outstandingly wide variety of targets.

You omit Rogue Trader and second edition from your list.  This is a significant omission because, especially in second edition, Eldar had numerous specialised units which were all potential game winners.  In addition, I contend that a number of the units and weapons that you list above were far from ubiquitous.

Let's take Starcannons as an example.  They were more effective against a wider range of targets in third edition than has been the case since, but they were still at their best against elite armies.  Against horde armies it wasn't the best option.  It was designed and primarily functioned as an anti-MEQ weapon, and this is what it excelled at.

Wraithlords were only considered to be so effective in third edition because of their durability not for their damage output.  In addition, their damage output was at its best when it was specialised, so they were either equipped for anti-tank duty or equipped for an anti-infantry/light vehicle role.  This highlights how they needed to be specialised, in order to be sufficiently effective.

Harlequins and Falcons being combined broke every single piece of narrative and lore ever written, but in terms of actual effectiveness I remember discussing this in depth at the time, and it was open to question.  Falcons themselves were only considered effective because of their durability, not because of their offensive output.  As for the Harlequins, you are right that they were more of a generalist effective against all comers unit back then, but, and this is the crucial point for me, either Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshees, were more effective against horde or MEQ armies respectively.  The result is that unless, like you, players were going to be up against a very wide range of diverse opposition, Harlequins were not the best choice.  It was, and still is, even possible to have an idea of whether you'll primarily face MEQ or GEQ opposition at some tournaments, making opting for the specialised option perfectly viable.

Seer Councils were only ever selected because they could act as a tarpit.  They were not chosen for being generalists, while the Wave Serpent shield is a one-off, situational, and not comparatively salient in my opinion.  The Scatter Laser  has always been one of the few Eldar weapons, along with the Shuriken Cannon, which has been designed as a multi-purpose weapon, so while we are in agreement here, it's not a valid comparison since these weapons were always meant to function in this way.

To put it simply, the role of a specialised unit and the kind of threat it poses is glaringly obvious to your opponent, making it super-easy for him to prioritise and decisively take out those elements of your force that are particularly threatening to him.

Not in my experience.  Just because Eldar is a specialist army doesn't mean that there is no way to spread threats.  The classic example is either taking two of the same unit, but there are other ways too.  It's possible, for example, to spread anti-tank threats across an Eldar army through both long ranged and short ranged options.  There are plenty of ways to achieve this and I'm more than happy to list specific examples if that would be useful, but as an experienced player yourself, you probably don't need me to do this.

For example, an army of versatile units would be 5 SM Tactical squads with krak grenades and a meltagun in each one. The same thing but in "specialised" form would be an Eldar army of 4 squads of DAs (specialised anti-personnel) and 1 squad of 5 Fire Dragons (specialised anti-tank). The number of anti-tank guns in both forces is the same. Now tell me, against which of the two forces it would be easier to take out the AT section so that your vehicles would have pretty much free reign over the battlefield? I think the answer is obvious. But that's not all. Even if the Dragons do not get singled out and decisively destroyed in the first 1-2 turns, I'd argue that the SM force would still have comparatively easier time dealing with the enemy force that includes several vehicles, for that very reason: every SM squad has some AT capability, while Dragons are just one unit and they can't be in several places simultaneously, nor can they threaten more than 1 vehicle per turn.

You're overlooking Storm Guardians with Fusion Guns, and/or a mix of a Fusion Gun and Flamer, which could be considered an approximate equivalent for Tactical Marines, or indeed Defender Guardians with an anti-tank weapon, such as a Brightlance.  There also needs to be consideration given to transports.  Most players are not going to field Fire Dragons on foot, for example, so if we put the Tactical Marines in Rhinos and the Eldar units in Wave Serpents, it changes the parameters further, as the Wave Serpent is superior to the Rhino.

I agree with you that Space Marines have an easier time in terms of having anti-tank capability across more units, at least in theory, but as I've presented to you in the example above, there are ways in which the Eldar can increase their anti-tank capability across the army, while retaining specialist units (e.g. Fire Dragons).  This neatly ties into the point that I was hinting at above that while Eldar is an army of specialists, there are a few generalist options, both weapon options and Guardians, which can be converted into more generalist units.  I prefer not to go down this route and to play more specialist units myself, but it's an approach that other Eldar players have taken successfully.

Specialisation is always going to be a key characteristic of the Eldar.  For me, it's a core element of the army and it's one of the main reasons why I play the army.  If I wanted an army of deadly dull generalists, I would play Marines.  I love the diversity of Eldar units and that many of them are only effective against certain opponents.  There is, however, flexibility in terms of Guardian units and transports, which can be equipped to function in more generalist roles, thus complementing the specialised Aspect Warriors.

[magenb]

Any one else notice the change to the scorpion claw? Enjoy until the FAQ hits

[faitherun (Fay-ith-er-run)]

Not sure what is going to get FAQ'd, unless you mean the fact is does not have a negative modifier.... In which case I say good!

x2 on a Scorpion str is not the same as x2 on a SM str.

[magenb]

Not sure what is going to get FAQ'd, unless you mean the fact is does not have a negative modifier.... In which case I say good!

x2 on a Scorpion str is not the same as x2 on a SM str.

The claw has had a negative for a long time, its been one of the factors in deciding between biting blades or claws, now its a jsut a very miinor point difference. So I'm thinking its was a copy paste fail and will be corrected later on.




As for specalist vs generalist.. if it was a balanced system then it wouldn't make a lick of difference. The big thing though is Eldar used to be based on force multipliers, specalists that generally hit first in combat and had base weapons designed to punish horde armies (AP 5/6) but could still hurt everyone else.

Now, every army has force multipliers and since they put out more shots they can make better use of it, can hit us first in combat and they took away our ability to deal with horde troops. The point reduction is one way of trying to balance this out a bit, did it go far enough? Need a few games under the belt to see, but I don't think it did much against hordes.




Is it just me or would you have prefered to see webway strikes being a point costed thing rather than CP?

[Gildaheir]

Not sure what is going to get FAQ'd, unless you mean the fact is does not have a negative modifier.... In which case I say good!

x2 on a Scorpion str is not the same as x2 on a SM str.

I don't have my Index handy, but didn't the Executioner also have the same modifier?  It doesn't have one in the codex, either.  Plus, it has a lower strength bonus than it did in the index.  Again, don't have the index on hand, so this might be fuzzy memory.  I agree that the claw not having the modified wouldn't surprise me.  Its strength isn't actually all that impressive with the 8th ed wound chart.

Stats edited in accordance with forum rule 1 - Iris.

[Scorn]

The claw has had a negative for a long time, its been one of the factors in deciding between biting blades or claws

I think only in the Index list for 8th Edition.  It wasn't even a specialist weapon under 7th edition rules so you still got the benefit of using it with a pistol unlike some other power fist analogues (or power fists themselves for that matter).