Hey, I am starting to see the finish-line with my Tau Fan-dex and have had some long standing ideas about the Eldar.

I am going to post the ideas unit by unit for everyone to discuss and to propose what they would like to see for that particular unit.

I ask that the posters do not jump ahead on the units or post long wishlists. This thread is about finding what you dakkites feel is the essence of the Eldar through a unit by unit discussion.


The First unit is the Wraithlord:

While effective, I feel the current version doesn't reflect the Eldar personality enough. These are constructs powered by the greatest warriors but can only be kitted out as a mediocre ranged(BS4 &limited # of shots) unit or a mediocre Assault(Limited/low number of attacks) unit. While converting some old metal wraithlords I had the idea of Aspect themed Wraithlords..

Wraithlords have the choice of purchasing preset weapons and abilities that are based according to Aspect. They would Wraithlords alter their physical structure to match each aspect. I will start with the aspects that still have pheonix lords, which while fun to think about are mainly just for concept. The the last three proposed units are the ones I think could go into the next codex.
The first 5 "conceptual" Lords go something like this:

Avenger Lords- Would be able to purchase 2 Twin-linked Shuriken Cannons, A Dire Wraith Sword, a Wraith Shield(5+ inv save), and The Bladstorm & Defend abilities. Avenger Lords are Fleet but are strength 7 and toughness 7 due to adaptation to aspect.

Banshee Lord- Would be able to purchase 2 Twin-linked Shuriken catapults, Dual Mirrorswords that increase base attacks to 4, Banshee Mask(still working on its abilities), and the War Shout & Acrobatic abilities. Because the Banshee Lord is lighter and has a lighter weapon load out it has the fleet rule, but its strength is 7 and its toughness is 7.

Dragon Lord- Would be able to purchase Twin Dragon Pikes(would fire as one weapon Range 18" S 8 AP 1 Assault 2, melta), Twin-linked Dragons breath Flamer, and the Crack Shot & Tank Hunter abilities. The Dragon Lord's dedication to lighter ranged weapons means that they are fleet but have strength 7. Toughness remains unchanged at 8.

Hawk Lord-Would be able to take 2 Star Lasers, Hawk Wings, Hawk grenade pack, and the SkyLeap & Intercept abilities. Because the Hawk Lord has been lightened to use its wings, it has the fleet rule, but its strength is reduced to 7 and its toughness is 6.

Scorpion Lord- Will be able to take Mandiblaster(+1A), Twin Chain Sabres(Gives the Scorp lord a base attack of 4), two twin-link shuriken catapults, and the Shadowstrike & Ambush(Stealth+Hit&Run) abilities. The Scorpion Lord is strength 9 and toughness 8


Now for the proposed Lords that might fit a more needed and unique notch in the Eldar army:

Reaper Lord- Is able to be equipped with a Vibro cannon, a choice between twin-linked Reaper or Tempest Launchers, and the Crack Shot & Fast Shot abilities. Because the Reaper Lords are thickly armoured they have Strength 8, Toughness 8 and a Sv of 2+.

Spider Lord- Is able to be equipped with a Twin-linked Shadow Weaver, Twin-linked Spinneret Rifle, Twin wraithswords(+1A) Warp jump generator(Capable of transporting Spiritseer?), and the Suprise assault & Withdraw abilities. The Spider lords have Strength 8, Toughness 8, and a 3+ save.

Wraith Lord- This Lord is powered by a spirit that mastered being a wraith guard and has no need for guidance from a spiritseer or any psyker. It can be equipped with Twin-linked D-Cannons, twin-linked flamers, Wraith sword, and has the ability to remove the wraithsight limitation from anry wraith guard units within 6 ".


These are the units up for discussion. Please feel free to theorize on how each of these would or would not work with the Eldar army and which units/builds they would work best with.
Also please post what you feel would be appropriate costs and possible different weapons/abilities options.

I again ask everyone, "Could you please not post wishlists or propose other new units?" Want this to be a unit by unit discussion. I will make exceptions for new units if they directly apply to the unit being discussed or to a unit previously discussed in this thread.

Thanks guys.

Exodite Auxiliaries would be awesome, also I love and always have loved the concept of aspect-wraithlords, but I think that rather than two twin-linked aspect related weapons, they should have one uber aspect-related weapon

Will get to the exodites eventually, but yes, I feel they need to factor into one of the Codices. Now back to the Aspect Lords.

If the weapons need to be changed, then to what?

What rules would you give these Aspect Lords?

How would you use these units and at what points do you think they should be?

So would the Wraith Lord be called the Wraith Lord Lord?

I'd prefer a spiritseer option for the farseer rather than a wraithlord without wraithsight, seeing as it's taboo for eldar to actually use wraiths as they see it as necromancy, so wraiths wouldn't really want to master being a wraithlord.

I have some aspect lords modeled up for apocalypse games, I'll have to post some pics. Here are the stats:

Scorpion Lord: Bright lance, Huge Chainsword, Energy Shield, mandi-cannons.

Cannons act as a heavy flamer. Energy shield gives a 4+ invulnerable save. Chansword (model is bigger then a terminator) multiplies wounds by d3, and adds +1 to the vehicle damage chart. 180 pts.

Spider Lord: Shadow Spinner, heavy flamer, warp jump pack, power claws (+1 A, reroll to hit). 200 pts.

Fire Dragon Lord: D cannon, thermal Lance, tank hunter. 150 points.

Dark Reaper Lord: EML, two s-cannons, reaper blades (+d6 attacks) 160 points.

Swooping Hawk lord: Jump Pack, scatter laser, heavy flamer, wraithsword, 200 pts.

Shining spear lord: (looks kind of like a necron destroyer lord, with a wraithlord torso on a vyper body)

Spear of Khane (Str D in close combat, S10 lance R 8' in shooting phase), fast, skimmer, 250 pts.

and also my Harly Shadow Seer Lord:

Psycher, Starcannon, giant h-kiss, veil of tears, immune to wraithsight (because it is an empty shell possessed by a Shadow seer) 170 pts.

In friendly games these are all usually just normal lords with a bright lance and wraithsword.

Which of these units would you like to see actually make it into the Eldar codex?

Which ones give the army something that fits but is unique enough to not obsolete an existing unit?

I don't think that aspect lords really fit into an eldar army, the wraith lords are powered by spirits which now have their minds dulled by being in the infinity circuit and the physical world is just a blur to them, so even if they were the mightiest Autarch, they would still have difficulty finding their way in a wraithbone tomb.

@NoShoes-I see this as a difference between Wraithsight with experience.

The thought behind this is, that rather than learning a whole new form of warfare they use the skills learned while they were living to fight. Think of their combat abilities as a trained reflex action.

I see, you want Wraithlords to be even more specialized because the person piloting was an exarch.

They already explain that in the codex (i.e a reaper exarch is fitted with guns while a banshee might be equipped with a wraithsword). Plus, when they become spirits in the infinity circuits their old martial prowess is dulled, so only the greatest eldar can become wraithlords.

However, ignoring that, I think that all the wraithlords should keep their original STR 10, T 8, but have a big jump in price for their specialization.

If i'm reading this correctly, the spider lord can teleport nearby units with it? Also how would rolling doubles affecting the jump? Would it take a wound, or does the spider lord instantly get lost in the warp?

The idea of flying fleeting wraithlords looks like it might get people having the same reaction as the blood angels flying dreadnought, except that wraithlords are way tougher to kill than a dreadnought.

I think that instead of giving them many of the abilities of their old exarch powers, perhaps they give bonuses to nearby aspect warriors of the same aspect (i.e the scorpion lord gives striking scorpions within 6" furious charge instead of letting a wraithlord infiltrate)

@ NoShoes-Thank you for the feed back. These are the kind of questions and ideas that I am hoping to see.
Sort of an how would this fit or work best and if not then what you feel would work.

I was thinking that the Spider Lord takes the wound seeing as it is his generator that is doing the Jumping and was thinking that Doubles rolls of 1's or 6's on the second jump would suck them in.

I really like the bonuses to their aspect idea. Sort of like Mini Avatars.

i thougth that the souls of exarchs stay within their armor when they "die"?

I believe that you are thinking of the Pheonix Lords, but I will go back and check.

You could also or instead assign related USR to them.

Avenger - A huge dire sword would only make sense if you intend it to attack other lords or the larger 'nids which aren't instantly gibbed by the high-strength attack from the lord.
Banshee - the mask could have the psychic scream ability, no?
Hawk - I'm unfamiliar with the Star Laser.
Dragon - Dragons aren't exactly tank troops, uncertain whether a T8 is appropriate when the others are T7. Could play on them being a mix between Avatar and Wraith Lord and give it immunity to fire in a similar manner instead.
Wraith - Somehow I feel the portable D-Cannon is sufficiently powerful without the highly increased melee of the Wraithsword. Mid-range shooty?

Since the Hawk and the Spider lords are meant to go "on their own" as well as a high chance of the Reaper lord staying behind the range of Farseers, maybe some sort of Focus Crystal upgrade for re-rolling the blindness test is appropriate. 10 points worth of insurance maybe?

A personal random comment on the topic: maybe Craftworld-individual Wraithlords is more appropriate. I have an image of a former Scorpion lord being more melee-biased, but maybe not quite fully functional with the semi-psychic abilities of an Exarch. However, an Iyanden lord would easily be a larger construct leaning more towards D-tech while a Sam-Hahn lord would have to have more speed to keep up.

The theory behind Exarch based lords is that an Exarch is a small infinity circuit to themselves, loaded with the spirits of all who wore the armor before. However, the suit itself is not invulnerable, and while most of the time the eldar retrieve the suit and repair it, some times only the spirit stones are left.

These stones cannot be laid into the Craftworld's circuit, since their obsession with war would bias the Craftworld. So until a new suit can be fabricated, which is a long and arduous process, the Exarch's souls power a wraithconstruct.

Normally, a wraith construct is powered by one spirit stone, so a multitude of stones would provide much more power. Power that can be channeled into arcane wargear suitable for Apocalypse level encounters.

In Apoc games they were used one of two ways. The first is using the "Spirit Host" rules, where they were treated as normal wraithlords.

The second was as I described earlier, with the additional rule that they could count squads of their aspect as a warlock for wraithsight purposes. This really looked cool as I had a full squad of each aspect running along with their lord. However, being all foot generally saw them all die horribly to Str D pie plates, but that is Apoc for you.

@Mahtamori & Durandel-With the Eldar codex being so crowded with units, "Which of these do you see as viable in the next codex?".

How many variations can you see actually making it into the next 'dex?

Do you feel that the Wraithlords are fine in the current game structure or do you think that they need a major rework(Stats, equipment, & points)?

I find that for its points, a Wraithlord is not very competitive. True, they are T8, so they require anti-tank weapons or PF to kill, but they don't dish out very much damage. With only two attacks they can easily be tarpitted and singled out by a hidden fist, and with only a 6' move they are slow.

For the same cost, you can have a moderately armed Falcon or Prism. Both are faster and have more firepower.

I doubt GW will put something like my wraithlords in the next dex. Most likely they will add an attack, alter some of the weapon point costs, and make them a 0-3 per slot. That seems the defacto change in codexes these days. My conversions were made because I thought they looked cool and I had an all foot aspect list back when everyone else ran triple falcons. The rules were a secondary thing after a few Apoc games. As an aside, I put some pictures in my gallery.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/gallery-user.jsp?u=2438

I really like the idea of themed wraithlords but honestly doubt that they will become a reality without additional craftworld codices. If GW ever stops slitting its own throat with their SM-centrist business plan and starts releasing codices that encourage different army builds(Like the Craftworld Codex and maybe introduce an Exodites and Outsiders Codex) then these units might become a very profitable reality.

Until this happens(about the same time Hades has a cold snap), I will be happy if the Wraithlords get wraithguard escorts, receive an extra attack, get to take the D-cannon, and wraithsight gets changed to where the spiritseer gives them Fleet.

Any three of these would be good.

Wraithlords are under "skilled" they really need a upgrade in BS and WS. But they do need more weapon to choose from. As for your idea they are good except the hawk lord that is perfect, a flying fleeting strength 7 Toughness 6 Monstrous Creature, Epic

@All Posters- I am going to move to the next unit. Feel free to continue discussing the wraithlords and ideas on how to improve them.

Personally I think that they are a great unit that fits the base concept of the Eldar very well. They just need to be refocused on their primary purpose as an effective bullet soak that has the ability to put out enough damage that they can't be ignored.


The next unit is one that doesn't exist yet. A transport that works with the aspect warriors assault abilities.

I'm not sure how GW might tackle this problem or if they will even try. My hope is that they will introduce a piece of wargear or unit upgrade that allows the transported unit to teleport or possibly tumble into assault.

Realistically, GW will probably use this as an opportunity to introduce and sell a new model.


So, I now ask, "What sort of assault transport do you see the Eldar receiving?".

How would you feel about Vypers being modified to carry two passengers each?

Squadron size of 3-4 vypers that can carry any unit with the acrobatic ability(Harlies&Banshees) might work. It would balance the units getting the ability to assault off of the transports and the vypers supporting fire with the squads being limited to 6-8 models max.

What do you guys think?

Well that sounds like a good idea. Banshees and scorpions would get a lot out of it for its weapons and protection.

^Was thinking only the Banshees and the Harlequins would get to ride the Vypers. It fits with their style.

The Scorpions can infiltrate and if I had a say they would either get fleet or a scout move in addition to the infiltrate rule.

Now, what should the Transport Vyper be named. Should it stay the same or should it get a name like the Drake or the Wyvern?

What should the armaments be?

Should they get the deep strike rule?

I have ideas but am interested in what others think.

for an assault vehical have something that can open a portal to the webway that allows units to come through and still assault (doesn't the cobra or some other super heavy already have something like this?)

i guess the alternative would give farseers the ability once per game to open a wraithgate just like in the ulthwe strikeforce. it might have to be adjusted a bit to fit the 5th edition rules....anyways what do you guys think?

I would keep the name. As for the armaments shuriken cannons would be good on it or I would arm it with sunrifles.
@TheAvari
For the portal rules the user would delare that they are using it. they can not anything that turn but next turn they can move 24" and it still counts as stationary. How is that?

Instead of being a closed topped assault vehicle, I would imagine the transport vyper to be more akin to the Dark Eldar Raider, which is open topped. I can imagine your idea of the Vyper with Banshees or Scorpions hanging on, while the vehicle zips ahead.

Edit#: Perhaps they can be given an upgrade to allow them to Deep Strike, a bit like the DE Raider or SM Landspeeders, showing that they're being dropped in from low orbit, and when they arrive on the table, they count as having moved flat out, and may not disembark or shoot the turn it arrives.

I thought about the deep-striking and, While very Dawn of War-ish, It doesn't fit the Eldar theme.

What I've come up with is an Eldar Out-flank rule that allows their vehicles to out-flank without making them OTT with a Scout move or infiltrate.

I think the Eldar arriving from almost every table edge would be a fluffy fix that could be easily balanced with equipment options and points.

What do ya think?

How will it work?
What I think the rule should be to deploy them any table edge as long as they are not with in 12" of an enemy unit and within 12" of the edge. As for the points maybe 60-65 per unit armed with the normal weapons as vypers.

Something like the dark eldar webway gate? I've always wanted one, not to wishlist.

focusedfire wrote:How would you feel about Vypers being modified to carry two passengers each?

Squadron size of 3-4 vypers that can carry any unit with the acrobatic ability(Harlies&Banshees) might work. It would balance the units getting the ability to assault off of the transports and the vypers supporting fire with the squads being limited to 6-8 models max.

What do you guys think?

This isn't a good idea and I don't think we will ever see this.

4 vipers carry 8 Harlies. What happens when one viper gets shot down? Two disembark and form a new unit? Those 2 are destroyed? Everybody must disembark?

Every idea is so disadvantageous that this wouldn't be a viable option. Taking a single transport for 8 models is easier and cheaper (points and money) too.

Macok wrote:

focusedfire wrote:How would you feel about Vypers being modified to carry two passengers each?

Squadron size of 3-4 vypers that can carry any unit with the acrobatic ability(Harlies&Banshees) might work. It would balance the units getting the ability to assault off of the transports and the vypers supporting fire with the squads being limited to 6-8 models max.

What do you guys think?

This isn't a good idea and I don't think we will ever see this.

4 vipers carry 8 Harlies. What happens when one viper gets shot down? Two disembark and form a new unit? Those 2 are destroyed? Everybody must disembark?

Every idea is so disadvantageous that this wouldn't be a viable option. Taking a single transport for 8 models is easier and cheaper (points and money) too.

Or something like the Harlequin 3rd edition unofficial codex transport (which was oddly chosen as a fast attack).

AV10/10/10, open topped, fast skimmer, linked cats, able to carry 6 infantry.

Since this would make a very fragile transport for some of the more expensive troops in the eldar army, some sort of energy or masking field might be in order. In short, a cheap option to the Wave Serpent for minned units.

How about the DE raider stats but only able to carry 6 or 8 models and the shield rule from the wave serpent. They should be able to out flank or something along the lines or that.

nathan2195 wrote:How will it work?
What I think the rule should be to deploy them any table edge as long as they are not with in 12" of an enemy unit and within 12" of the edge. As for the points maybe 60-65 per unit armed with the normal weapons as vypers.

They would only benefit from the outflank when coming in from reserve.

Macok wrote:This isn't a good idea and I don't think we will ever see this.

4 vipers carry 8 Harlies. What happens when one viper gets shot down? Two disembark and form a new unit? Those 2 are destroyed? Everybody must disembark?

Every idea is so disadvantageous that this wouldn't be a viable option. Taking a single transport for 8 models is easier and cheaper (points and money) too.

Funny, it is already in the game used by our little brothers the Tau. The Stripped Vypers(Thinking Passenger Pillon Upgrade +5 Points) would operate in the same manner as the Tau Piranha w/their drones in that if one is downed then all units disembark. Also, Acrobatic rule will possibly allow safer dismounts at faster speeds.

nathan2195 wrote:How about the DE raider stats but only able to carry 6 or 8 models and the shield rule from the wave serpent. They should be able to out flank or something along the lines or that.

Don't want the Two armies to start looking the same. If that happens then GW will be only one step from combining the codices. I was proposing the Vypers because of the inter-unit support that would occur and because it would look different from the DE while somehow looking very right for the Eldar.

Ok, now that we have taken care of the major issues it is back to the smaller but still important. I am proposing about 60-65 per unit armed with the normal weapons as the vypers.

focusedfire wrote:Don't want the Two armies to start looking the same. If that happens then GW will be only one step from combining the codices. I was proposing the Vypers because of the inter-unit support that would occur and because it would look different from the DE while somehow looking very right for the Eldar.

Your right some what, they would not get combined the DE would get eliminated and we don`t want that...

Time for the next unit. I would like to go with the Guardians ans Storm Gaurdians.

How would you improve the Guardians and storm guardians?

They haven't changed since 3rd edition, back when only Eldar and other fast armies had units which could run. Back then, they weren't really worth their points since they would die after their unleashed their shots, now they will die before they get to shoot since everyone can run, so having a 12" weapon just won't do.

Here's just a few options:
* Give them Avenger cats
* Reduce points
* Increase number of platforms, probably incrementally depending on Guardians.

As for Storm Guardians, well... again, they are weaklings with slightly better statline. Costly for their efficiency. Personally I'd like to see a deep strike simply added, but there are probably other ways to deal with them. Ironically that bringing 3 meltas with the squad is mandatory, no?
At the very least, give them 'nades. Edit: maybe a disclaimer: I've never actually had any practical experience with storm guardians.

I was thinking that maybe following the old craftworld codex idea but extending it.

First, I believe all Guardians should be BS 4. Yes, they are poets, artists and such but that doesn't preclide gaining experience. Elvis was an artist but he learned how to shoot straight once trained.
We are talking about a citizen militia that have been organized and fighting for hundreds of years if not more. Yet, Humans get BS 4 after 10 tears of combat? This makes no sense.

As to their weapon skill....I am up in the air. Personally, If the gaurdians got the same stat line as storm trooper for the old price of 10 points each I wouldn't mind. Then just change their basic weapons to Lasblasters or a range 24" rapid fire shuriken weapon for the Gaurdians and leave the Storms equipped as they are. Give both units Hay Wire grenades. This would leave them not as good as Dire Avengers but better and mor distinctive than they are.

To sum up:
WS 4 BS 4 S 3 T 3 W 1 A 1 I 4 Ld 7-8 Save 4+

Guardians get Range 24" Rapid Fire rifles and Defensive Grenades

Storms get Shuri-Pistol, sword(chain sword), Assault grenades

Both units are Fleet of Foot

What do you think?

I like your idea for the guardians except for their saves they should have 5+ not 4+, dire avengers should be better at something. Other than that they are good.

I went with 4+ save to reflect that they would want to preserve the lives of their citizen militia.

As things would stand with my version of the guardians, the Dire Avengers would still be carrying Assault 2 Range 18" weapon. This would translate into an extra attack per combined shooting/assault than the Storm Guardians and this is before the exarch powers kick in.

Also, With the standard guardians, you would start to see the support weapons again.

I feel this would make the DA's, Guardians, and Storm Guardians all viable to use, depending upon the build.

If it is to powerful in playtest them maybe roll back to 5+ save but think I would rather up the costs and DA's abilities to maintain balance.

The Eldar militia has been organized since the downfall of the Eldar civilization, but their citizens only serve part-time in it. Part-time for an Eldar, however, is quite possibly longer than a human soldier is expected to live, and that's only the amount of training the Eldar militia get.

The only problem I see with BS4, however, is strictly a gaming one. The volume of fire Eldar can dish out is quite high. Additionally, Guardians with BS4 rubs off on several other areas such as platforms, vehicles, etc. Yes, it can be done, but price hikes and several other things will change.
I'm more fond of changing Warlock powers to include a BS or hit chance increase instead, since this gives targeted and controllable boost to Guardian performance.

Guardians being fragile is OK. They aren't the survival troop choice, after all, that's the realm of the Spiritseer-Wraiths. Guardians are support/firepower troops, and simply put need more of it. I'm much more comfortable with more platforms to form the motivator for more Guardians. Then the Guardians themselves would be the hull or protectors of the fire-base. An extra spike if you get too close.
Incidentally, it's easier and cheaper to get heavy weapons on the board if you use Vypers, which are supposed to be a tactical unit rather than a firebase unit. Maybe they get taken down a bit easier than Guardians, though...

As for Storm Guardians - holo fields a'la Harlequins (5++ save)?

Ok, I don't have much time to get everything down, but how about a Catapult with an adjustible fire mode. Make them 12" Assault 2 or 18" Assault 1? That would give them the mobility that is a hallmark of Eldar, while not being overpowered, and not being the same as other similar weapons. And it would be different, play wise, to the way Rapid Fire works.

I'd put armor to +4, though, just because they should have better protection to justify the fluff. If the cost is too cheap, they need to be repointed, not weakened to justify the cost. Ultimately, fluffwise, they should be immensely skilled to represent the years of training they have, but if we want to go that way, we'll have to pay for it.

OK, I see your point for the saves. One thing I need for the guardians is the option to take more than one platform

How about the ability for the platform to fire at a different target?

The reason I'm thinking of going this route is that I believe the guardians should be limited to 10-12 man units?

focusedfire wrote:How about the ability for the platform to fire at a different target?

That would be good because usually the weapon I take is for anti-tank uses.

focusedfire wrote:The reason I'm thinking of going this route is that I believe the guardians should be limited to 10-12 man units?

For that idea have it 10 max without a heavy weapon, than for squads with a heavy weapon it has two more men which is the crew of the gun.

Limiting them to 10 with two being replaced, instead of added, to control the platform is by far easier and neater, and if that doesn't convince you then consider the Wave Serpent's transport limitations.

What about upgrading specific guardians with a hand-carried Shuriken Cannon? It's assault, after all... Eldar are a bit static, their units tend not to have many options at all to choose from.

I really want the Defender Guardians to reflect a mobile ranged aspect of warfare, while the Storm Guardians are a little more assault oriented. The reason for this is to reflect the Eldar nature of focusing upon one aspect or another.

I am thinking that the Warlock will gain a longer ranged version of destructor or much improved conceal that will compliment the defender guardian abilities.

The Guardian Defenders should be armed with Rapid Fire weapons that force a choice between move or shoot long range. The exception to this would be the weapon platforms that can move and fire to max range. I don't know if the platforms should be relentless or slow and purposeful. If the weapons stay as they are with the boost in BS then they should have relentless, but if they are improved further by twin-linking then they would have to become slow and purposeful, I think

Here's another thought.

Eldar Longrifle - changed to assault 1
Rangers - WS improved to 4. Unit may no longer be upgraded to Pathfinders, but may be joined by a Pathfinder at +25 points.
Pathfinder - Any unit lead by a Pathfinder benefits from the Scout and Move Through Cover USR. A unit of Rangers also ignores difficult terrain. A Pathfinder may exchange his Long Rifle for a Power Weapon and a Shuriken Pistol at no cost.
Guardian - A unit of Guardians may be joined by either a Warlock or a Pathfinder at +25 points.

This way you can make an Alaitoc force, and you get more tactical options with your Storm Guardians. In most cases, a Pathfinder would be better than a Warlock, but a Warlock still has it's uses in an Iyanden oriented force or an Ulthwé oriented one because of spiritsight or that the Pathfinder does not provide important cover saves for a non-mech force.
Conceal could be reworded that if the unit additionally is in cover, the cover will be improved by +1.
I'm not certain Destructor need to be rewritten, but rather the supportive abilities the Warlock can otherwise chose be made more relevant to a shooting unit.

Mahtamori wrote:Here's another thought.

Eldar Longrifle - changed to assault 1
Rangers - WS improved to 4. Unit may no longer be upgraded to Pathfinders, but may be joined by a Pathfinder at +25 points.
Pathfinder - Any unit lead by a Pathfinder benefits from the Scout and Move Through Cover USR. A unit of Rangers also ignores difficult terrain. A Pathfinder may exchange his Long Rifle for a Power Weapon and a Shuriken Pistol at no cost.
Guardian - A unit of Guardians may be joined by either a Warlock or a Pathfinder at +25 points.

Longrifle- No, all snipers should be heavy 1 just not the eldar`s
Rangers- WS should be improved. As for the pathfinders idea not a good idea just leave it as it is.
Guardian- They are good as it is for squad leaders.

Well, regardless, common comments about Guardians are, roughly in order of frequency:
* Die very easily
* Low amount of firepower at an effective range
* Tend to miss a lot with the heavy weapon (requires Guide to be effective)
* Heavy weapon is the only reason to take them
* Costly for efficiency

So fixes to the problems seem to be, roughly in order of relevancy:
* Increase armour save to 4+
* Increase basic weapon range with +6" in one way or another, or increase number of platforms, or both
* Increase number of platforms or increase BS to 4
* ..
* OR, lower point cost to 6-7 per model. (Personally not a fan of this one)

Depending on how much you compound the other changes, you may need a price increase per Guardian. However, considering that Guardians can be described as the reason why Eldar usually scale poorly in games 0-1500 points or games at points where the FOC tend to be filled, essentially an Eldar's force has nearly all the versatility in Heavy Support and Elite choices. Guardians are the bread and butter foot troops of the Eldar army and described as support teams.

* 4+ save: Could possibly make them more assaulty. Certainly a boon for Storm Guardians. Could be argued that doesn't merit a cost increase on it's own.
* Shuricat 18": May remove the niche that Avengers occupy similar to how it was in 3rd edition. Extending Guardian's range beyond 12" could possibly mean they need a new weapon entirely.
* BS4: This has impact on the rest of the Eldar mechanized section. All vehicles are piloted by Guardians. Vypers are already rather costly and this could be their way out, Falcons may move from slightly costly to slightly too good, War Walkers bring so much firepower already that this may simply overpower them. Fire Prisms are left untouched.
* Increase number of platforms: My personal favorite. Simply put, you don't need to do anything with the price at all, the platforms have their own cost. All you need to do is have it scale with the size of the squad. This still leaves the fact that the Guardians would be fillers, but try to look at a Guardian Squad as a modified War Walker squad (less long ranged firepower, more survivability against anti-tank, less survivability against CC).

Sorry for repeating, slightly, what has been said in other threads and this one, but the way I look at it these are some of the best options. I'm personally a fan of 4+ with more platforms combination, particularly 1 platform per 5 Guardians.

I like your idea of giving them 4+ that makes them objective holders not cannon fodder in my army. As for the platforms they need that from the very start

@Mahtamori-Your analysis is spot on and no need to apologize for the summing up. You narrowed down to the four points that I've been addressing and supplemented with the reasons of the needed changes so that others wishing to join in conversation will have better understanding. As to some of the points made, I'd like to either echo or clarify my perspective on the Eldar for each of these.

Improve armour save to 4+: Yes, From both a fluff and game mechanics perspective. Back in second or third edition the 5+ may have cut it but not with the current level of codex creep and mechanization in 5th ed. For Storm Guardians this is along with plasma grenades and bumping their BS to 4 would be enough to make them viable.

Change Guardian weapons: Yes & No, Strictly from a unit purpose perspective. Guardian defenders are a defensive unit by nature and have no need for a 12" range 2 shot assault weapon. The unit would be better defined and balanced by a switch to a Rapid Fire version of Lasblasters or something similar that has a 24" range.
Storm Guardians on the other hand are perfectly equipped with the pistols and swords. Their standard weapons with the improvements already mentioned would make them a solid unit. They wouldn't be as good as Dire Avengers in assaults and objective holding, but would have better tactical flexibility.

Improving Guardian BS to 4: Yes, Strictly from an army design point of view. The average Eldar are supposed to be super-human in their grace speed and accuracy. This should translate to BS 4 standard on both Guardians and Eldar Vehicles because of guardian crews. This would make most of the Eldar vehicles close to being worth their points costs and the only unit that would become OP would be the War Walkers which could easily balanced by an appropriate points increase.

Eldar weapon platforms changes: This is a grey area. I like the idea of of a platform for every 5 guardians as it reflects the Eldar Glass Hammer design philosophy. This would reduce the number of alblative wounds for each weapon platform while increasing overall unit cost. This would make the unit good at Alpha striking but it points effectieness would decrease dramatically when going second, coming under fire from blast weapons, or when facing opponents with a High VoF.

I also, like my idea of allowing these weapons to target and fire upon seperate units, but this may not fit the Eldar character and will be OP if combined with more platforms. This ability might could be a new Warlock/Autarch power but it may be a bit to Tau-ish.

Then there is the question of the Eldar Heavy weapon platforms. These are also operated by Guardians with any changes to the base guardian stat-line affecting these units. I have posted an idea but it feels unfinished or a little off. It is my base concept that the Eldar should not have any static units. Instead they should be based upon movement and speed.

What do yopu guys think?

Platforms aren't heavy weapons, so you stand a somewhat good chance of hiding them and then moving them out when ready to fire. Additionally, reserving them also protects them more from alpha strikes and makes the Eldar army threaten a larger area, so spending points in there and chancing it on the dice to go first isn't devastating - it can be mitigated.

Good point about the platforms.

My main question is now more about the Support Weapon Squads. How do you fix these units?

Support weapon squads need the ability to different weapons. That is really the only thing they need.

Mahtamori wrote:Well, regardless, common comments about Guardians are, roughly in order of frequency:
* Die very easily
* Low amount of firepower at an effective range
* Tend to miss a lot with the heavy weapon (requires Guide to be effective)
* Heavy weapon is the only reason to take them
* Costly for efficiency

So fixes to the problems seem to be, roughly in order of relevancy:
* Increase armour save to 4+
* Increase basic weapon range with +6" in one way or another, or increase number of platforms, or both
* Increase number of platforms or increase BS to 4
* ..
* OR, lower point cost to 6-7 per model. (Personally not a fan of this one)

Really, Eldar must be different from Marines, Tau, and IG. They cannot be too much of a horde as they are a dying race. They cannot have heavy armor because they prize speed and agility. If they have long range, then they must have high cost to match their mobility. So the best option is to increase their short range firepower. Leave them BS 3, T3, 5+ save, but make shuricats assault 4. Since they will only have one turn of shooting at best, they should be the glass cannon and destroy what they shoot at.

@Durandel-Shuricats at assault 4 would make the Guardians as good as Dire Avengers for less points.

Giving the Guardians a 4+ save, bumping them to BS 4, while better defining(Narrowing) their focus will fit better with the overall Eldar Codex.

@nathan-The support weapons are to vulnerable against everything, especially for a valued Heavy Support Slot. Something more than just adding Bright Lances, EML's, and the such.

Either make them a better non-suicide unit or get rid of the unit altogether.

@focusedfire
I see your point so maybe give them a 2+ or 3+ save that will make them less likely to die as fast.

People here really can't agree on how good guardians should be, but they might be thinking of different craftworlds. There would be a huge difference between a craft world that has managed to avoid constant use of guardians (and the loss of precious eldar life that goes along with it), and craft worlds that have been in such bitter conflict that they have been excessively using their guardians to the point where they have few left leaving nothing but battle hardened guardians.

I really feel the only way to properly show that is for the next eldar codex to include 2 tiers of guardians for both defenders and storm guardians much like how IG has guardsmen & veterans.

Black Guardians a'la Craftworld Ulthwé? (Ulthwé happen to be the most populous craftworld)

I think most would agree that Guardians should perform equally well as to merit 8 to 10 points. At the moment I'd give at most 6 points for Guardians. I don't think there's a wide agrement over Guardians being throw-away troops.

The problem with Guardians is that they use weapons which are essentially close combat, but without stats to back it up. Defenders use the close combat weapons in alpha-strike while storm guardians are more tie-up forces. If there's anything Bladestorm has taught us is that shurikens in high volume of fire can actually be effective, but the biggest difference is that Avengers have three advantages:
1. They don't need to get in guaranteed counter-charge range
2. They have greater and more reliable VOF per troop
3. They do have armour and supporting abilities to sustain an assault (the latter requires Exarch).
While they still are crap in assault, they can hold out long enough to support them. Guardians can not.

Nathan, please don't over-do it. We're not trying to create a new Spess Mahreens codex

The way you are making guardian's play woud make DA's redundent.

I'd suggest keeping them as they are, changing their weapons to be the same as a boltgun (longer range than DA's but have stay still to make use of it) that would encourage Guardian's to gard objectives ect. maybe BS4 but not WS4. Then reduce the points to make them a viable choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing that could be considered would be to improve the save granted from the warlock power conceal and increase its point cost (maybe 4+ save?). That would help their survivability from ranged fire.

I believe that 8 points with a 4+ save is more or less what it takes. It helps the Stormies and it helps the Guardians survive, which is their greatest problem.

However, the Guardians also need more platforms, which are payed for separately. Increasing the number of weapons mean that you also get more synergy benefits from Guiding them, which in turn helps them with their hit-related problems.

Now, 6" on Guide can sometimes be a bit difficult to work with, especially considering the costs you pay for it in comparison to what other armies pay for their psychic powers, but as a tactical concept it is still sound.

I think it would be more appropriate for them to have 5+ save's at 6 points a piece. Then give the option of a warlock for 20 points and conceal (changed to 4+ cover save) for an other 20 points. It gives the option of keeping them as cheap disposable units or giving them a significant defensive boost for 40 points per unit.

That would give 11 T3 models with 4+ saves across the board for 100 points or 10 T3 models with 5+ armour for 60 points. Might have to be re-thought if they get BS 4 though.

Thoughts?

schadenfreude wrote:People here really can't agree on how good guardians should be, but they might be thinking of different craftworlds. There would be a huge difference between a craft world that has managed to avoid constant use of guardians (and the loss of precious eldar life that goes along with it), and craft worlds that have been in such bitter conflict that they have been excessively using their guardians to the point where they have few left leaving nothing but battle hardened guardians.

I really feel the only way to properly show that is for the next eldar codex to include 2 tiers of guardians for both defenders and storm guardians much like how IG has guardsmen & veterans.

I'd love to see differing tiers of Guardians but there is no room for such in the Codex. If GW would release Craftworld specific codices then yes, Guardians to match the craftworld would be great. But, so far GW seems to be hellbent on sticking with a business plan that effectively neglects a large number of their customers favorite armies.

Gorechild wrote:The way you are making guardian's play woud make DA's redundent.

So far what I've proposed has left the DA's viable and in their own niche, while improving and defining the Guardians. If we were going to attempt to shoe-horn another unit entry into the over crowded Eldar codex then the Storms and Defenders might get their own stat-lines and entries. Something along the lines of the Black Guardians entry from the Craftworld Eldar Codex.
As things stand and until GW gives us Craftworld specific codices, the Guardians need to reflect the concept of being on the battlefeild as a regular fighting force.

Gorechild wrote:I think it would be more appropriate for them to have 5+ save's at 6 points a piece. Then give the option of a warlock for 20 points and conceal (changed to 4+ cover save) for an other 20 points. It gives the option of keeping them as cheap disposable units or giving them a significant defensive boost for 40 points per unit.

That would give 11 T3 models with 4+ saves across the board for 100 points or 10 T3 models with 5+ armour for 60 points. Might have to be re-thought if they get BS 4 though.

Thoughts?

IMO, 6 Point Guardians is nine kinds of bad. Horde Eldar? Heck, Guardians should be limited to 10 man squads. The current availability of 20 man squads is so thouroughly counter to the concept of the Eldar that people never play the squads to that capacity. No, 8-10 point Guardians that are improved to be worth their points is the direction that I hope GW takes.

As to the idea of improving conceal, I'd rather that it just added +2 to any coversaves they take or even just gives the unit the Stealth USR.

Instead of focussing on what...four different changes to make to everything that is to do with guardians, what not make a single change...to the warlock entry:

Warlocks can choose two powers, 1 passive, 1 active. Passive powers are always 'on' active needs a psychic test.

Passive powers:
Conceal - the unit gets a 5+ cover save, or +1 to an existing cover save - this is instead of increasing armour - eldar still wear thin plastic, a 4+ isnt warranted. This way, guardians are more survivable than before, yet have weaker armour than aspects.

Embolden - as usual
Enhance - as usual

Active:
Divine - One model in the unit may shoot using the warlocks BS (counts as shooting - negates low BS - basically allows more accurate firing with the platform)

Confuse: used at the start of the opponents assault phase - the opposing unit counts as being in difficult terrain for the purposes of assault - this counters the short range of the catapults, meaning that even though you are within 12". then opponent cannot always guarantee a charge.

Destructor - as usual
Cleave - All attacks from the warlocks witchblade/singing spear ignores armour saves until the start of your next turn

This is just a rough sketch, but theres lots in there for storm guardians, defenders, jetbikes, support weapons and wraithguard.

To fix support weapons:
shadow weaver - dangerous terrain for unit hit.
D Cannon - ok as it is with the 5th ed partial rules
Vibrocannon- as normal: next turn the unit counts as being in difficult terrain.

While I don't think running through the Eldar Codex unit by unit and saying what could/should be changed is a terrible way to generate ideas for the next codex, I think you really have to get the overall armywide rules sorted out first because they influence everything. Pretty much every 5th edition codex has had some form of unique army wide rule which basically defines how the army is going to play, Marines get ATSKNF and an host of other options, Wolves get multi HQs, Guard get orders and a host of other options, Blood Angels get the Thirst and Fast everywhere, Nids get Synapse etc.

Eldar used to have fleet separating them out from other armies, they were easy to kill but fast. With running (and a huge number of other ways to get fleet now) its not much of an advantage anymore.

Basically the problem is that while our vehicles are fast/faster than most, our infantry is pretty much the exact same as everybody else. I would suggest that as an army wide special rule, all normal sized Eldar infantry (i.e that are actually Eldar, not Wraithguard/Lords etc) are able to shoot and still run in the shooting phase (or run and still shoot). Any unit which does this wouldn't be able to charge though (they lose fleet for that turn if they use the rule). Also a number of units should probably gain fleet, the 3+ save thing doesn't really make sense anymore so Scorpions etc should get it. This has huge implications for a large number of units, including a number of units which have currently fallen out of use. If you add in a emphasis on psychic powers/abilities then you get a pretty unique codex even before you get to the unit details.

Guardians can keep their 12" range, because they can try and move into range, shoot and then run out of range again. Avengers stay good anti infantry units with 18" range, they can't take a Heavy or Special Weapon so it shouldn't be too overpowered. Reapers become slightly mobile and therefore usable, Warp Spiders and Hawks become almost impossible to catch (Spiders could present a problem with this rule as they are actually moderately resilient as well). Once you buff our infantry like this it is mostly a case of playing with unit upgrades, toying with new units and then adjusting points values to get an army.

@Powerguy- While your suggestion is good, I feel that the Army wide ability your prosing is a bit Tau-ish. The rule describes how the Tau fight as opposed how Eldar do.

The Tau Dance out of range counter punching while the Eldar strike with a precision knock out puch that leaves them the only ones standing.

That is why I think the Entire Eldar Army should be have the ability to out flank. They don't get scout or infiltrate, except for the units that would normally have such, they just get to come in from all directions to indicate how fast they can Flank their opponents.

Putting that another way:

For the purposes of arriving from reserve, the eldar treat any board edge which is not specifically labelled in the mission rules as "belonging" to the opponent as "the eldar player's table edge".

An eldar army which includes a farseer may force a reroll of the die rolled to seize the initiative. The second result is final.

An eldar army which includes an autarch may force a reroll of the die rolled to see if the game ends (if the autarch is alive at that time). The second result is final. (this may be used more than once a game)

At the start of any turn when the eldar player is rolling for reserves, if the eldar army includes a farseer and an autarch who are both alive, the eldar player may reroll any one die rolled to see if a unit arrives from reserves. The second result is final.

@Gwyidion- Very well written rules there. Are you perchance, related to Gwar!.

I especially like the detail in how you made the board edges follow the missions and then included the natural progression to controlling the reserves.

+1 to Gwyidion

Gwyidion rules represents the eldar and it would make them very unique in 40K.As same with focusedfire extremely well written rules.

As for the guardians limit the squads to 10, make them able to take two platforms per squad and keep their weapons and saves the same. I would leave the cost of them the same.

@Xenith
The warlocks are good I would leave them the same they are good as they are.

Eldar universal rule? How about webway deployment? Eldar units may deepstrike. This is basically drop pods, except you don't get a unit which sits there and shoots away afterwards. Might be a tad much.

I'm not a big fan of adding special rules (to set Eldar apart) tied to specific HQ choices, since it further limits and reduces the Phoenix Lord and Yriel usage.

Another option... aren't Eldar described as having the highest density psycher (and every one of them being a minor psycher at least) of all races? Special psycher powers that any squad may purchase? Could be minor stuff similar to the Warlock powers (but it's per squad, so Destructor would be ONE Guardian may use the template, not all).

I don't really like the idea of the psycher power for each unit it is to similar to the exarch powers. As for the Eldar universal rule maybe have so that you must have a farseer or Phoenix Lord to use it.

nathan I suggest you edit that post, it makes no sense atm.

Eldar have the highest psychic density because every Eldar has some psychic ability, I believe on par with a IG Sanctioned psyker. The only trick is that not all of them are going to have powers which are actually helpful in battle. As such every Aspect getting some form of psychic power would work fine but Guardians (being militia) and other support units wouldn't, the only issue would be remembering to cast them. Linking them to Exarch abilities would probably be the best way to do this (giving more reason to actually take an Exarch), every Aspect would get two always on powers much like they have at the moment (except they should effect the whole squad in most cases) and a single psychic ability/boost which they have to roll for. Farseers and Warlocks obviously need a major boost as well.

Webway deployment as a special rule doesn't really make much sense implemented as you suggest. The webway is not like the warp, you enter and exit from set points and can't simply pop up whereever you want to (Eldar avoid entering the actual warp as much as possible in any case). It can still be added pretty easily though, just dust off the webway portal rules from the old CWE/DE codices, add rules to stop Wraithlords etc popping up in the middle of the board and you are set.

The main reason I suggested a run and still shoot mechanic be added as an army wide special rule is that currently pretty much all our infantry units are ok at best and it adds mobility to make up for a lack of resilience. On the whole our vehicles need far less work, they are mostly overcosted but are otherwise both effective and fluffy. Having a large number of units outflanking is fine (it still needs to be slightly random though its too powerful as suggested currently), but it doesn't really help out our infantry units much at all, in fact without some major changes to the list it would make little difference to the lists you would see, as mech gets much better. Adding rules to make the Autarch's leadership abilities actually do something is great, but I wouldn't tie them in quite as closely with the Farseer as you have otherwise you are only going to see that combination of HQs, any combination of Seers, Autarch's and Phoenix Lords should be equally viable. Consider making these bonuses upgrades to the Autarch, by default have him add +1 to reserves and a re-roll for the choose sides/starting roll but allow upgrades to allow for Outflanking and other such stuff. Equally the Seer should probably allow a single re-roll for reserves/outflanking side per turn with upgrades to let him do more than that.

Anyway I would cap Guardian squads at 12, let them take 1 heavy weapon per 6 models. Max 12 and 6 for the heavy weapon works better than 10 and 5 imo as it stops you taking two Heavy Weapons and a Warlock and a Serpent (if you can't fit you shouldn't be able to take one btw). As increasing their armour save isn't viable and making them faster somehow is tricky I would add some form of high tech defensive bonuses, thinking something like Energy Shields (ala DOW) a 3" long barrier which can be placed within 1" of the unit facing a direction which gives the unit cover from shooting (but only from that direction). Obviously wouldn't work against barrage weapons or attacks from behind them and you wouldn't need to roll terrain to run through it. Basically Guardians get a Wave Serpent energy field stuck on a platform.
Storm Guardians also change to max 12 but 1 special weapon per 5 models. Not really sure what else to do with them tbh, the only real apparent use for them is as a flamer delivery unit. I guess they could get the Energy Shield upgrade as well, but there isn't really an easy way to make them decent in assault other than maybe letting some of them take a couple of power weapons/fists (can't justify armour, WS or S increase and they aren't a horde unit).
Warlocks get a major overhaul, increase Ld to 9 for starters, they should have a bunch of always on powers like they do now and a couple of powers they have to roll to use. The list Xenith posted seems like a good start. If you combine Conceal (+1 to cover) with the Energy Shields then you end up with a decent backfield infantry unit which can take a few hits even if in the open, while firing off some heavy weapon shots on the move and using catapults to torrent anyone who comes in too close. Alternatively you could field them without the Warlock or Shields and they would still be usable to grab backfield objectives in cover. The cover save thing would possibly make them overlap a bit with Rangers/Pathfinders, but they still get infiltrate and a range of other bonuses. I would suggest making them more into assassin/disruption teams (still troops) similar to Wolf Scouts (they are often described the same way) in any case.

@Powerguy- Could you pls use the @(insert name) or the quotes function to show to whom you are addressing on each topic. Makes things a little easier for everyone when you do so.

Powerguy wrote: Eldar have the highest psychic density because every Eldar has some psychic ability, I believe on par with a IG Sanctioned psyker. The only trick is that not all of them are going to have powers which are actually helpful in battle. As such every Aspect getting some form of psychic power would work fine but Guardians (being militia) and other support units wouldn't, the only issue would be remembering to cast them. Linking them to Exarch abilities would probably be the best way to do this (giving more reason to actually take an Exarch), every Aspect would get two always on powers much like they have at the moment (except they should effect the whole squad in most cases) and a single psychic ability/boost which they have to roll for. Farseers and Warlocks obviously need a major boost as well.

I can see this, from both a fluff and game mechanics stand point, working only by being channeled through the Warlocks/Farseers. Fluff-wise the Eldar discipline themselves to a single path, refusing to use their natural abilities for anything but the path they are on. Game mechanic-wise you'll end up with an overly complicated system that may end up being a copy of the SoB Faith Point system.

Instead, I think something to the effect of, "The number of Eldar in the Squad boosts the warlock(insert psychic ability here) power". Doing it this way bumps the power level but if the Warlock fail the PotW test the unit loses all of the abilities. Having the warlocks channel the energy keeps them necessary.

Powerguy wrote:Webway deployment as a special rule doesn't really make much sense implemented as you suggest. The webway is not like the warp, you enter and exit from set points and can't simply pop up whereever you want to (Eldar avoid entering the actual warp as much as possible in any case). It can still be added pretty easily though, just dust off the webway portal rules from the old CWE/DE codices, add rules to stop Wraithlords etc popping up in the middle of the board and you are set.

Not a huge fan of this my self. I could see it on a very limited basis, but only if it was somehow tied to the Harlequins.

Powerguy wrote:The main reason I suggested a run and still shoot mechanic be added as an army wide special rule is that currently pretty much all our infantry units are ok at best and it adds mobility to make up for a lack of resilience. On the whole our vehicles need far less work, they are mostly overcosted but are otherwise both effective and fluffy. Having a large number of units outflanking is fine (it still needs to be slightly random though its too powerful as suggested currently), but it doesn't really help out our infantry units much at all, in fact without some major changes to the list it would make little difference to the lists you would see, as mech gets much better. Adding rules to make the Autarch's leadership abilities actually do something is great, but I wouldn't tie them in quite as closely with the Farseer as you have otherwise you are only going to see that combination of HQs, any combination of Seers, Autarch's and Phoenix Lords should be equally viable. Consider making these bonuses upgrades to the Autarch, by default have him add +1 to reserves and a re-roll for the choose sides/starting roll but allow upgrades to allow for Outflanking and other such stuff. Equally the Seer should probably allow a single re-roll for reserves/outflanking side per turn with upgrades to let him do more than that.

I think you are drastically under-estimating the benefit of the out-flanking deployment would have on foot troops.

You do have a good point about the HQ's being to slanted towards only a few choices, but want to talk about only one unit at a time. Have watched to many threads go out of control with no real benefit to those participating because everyone starts to wish-list. We will talk about the HQ's Right after we talk about Warlocks, which I think will be next.

Powerguy wrote:Anyway I would cap Guardian squads at 12, let them take 1 heavy weapon per 6 models. Max 12 and 6 for the heavy weapon works better than 10 and 5 imo as it stops you taking two Heavy Weapons and a Warlock and a Serpent (if you can't fit you shouldn't be able to take one btw). As increasing their armour save isn't viable and making them faster somehow is tricky I would add some form of high tech defensive bonuses, thinking something like Energy Shields (ala DOW) a 3" long barrier which can be placed within 1" of the unit facing a direction which gives the unit cover from shooting (but only from that direction). Obviously wouldn't work against barrage weapons or attacks from behind them and you wouldn't need to roll terrain to run through it. Basically Guardians get a Wave Serpent energy field stuck on a platform.
Storm Guardians also change to max 12 but 1 special weapon per 5 models. Not really sure what else to do with them tbh, the only real apparent use for them is as a flamer delivery unit. I guess they could get the Energy Shield upgrade as well, but there isn't really an easy way to make them decent in assault other than maybe letting some of them take a couple of power weapons/fists (can't justify armour, WS or S increase and they aren't a horde unit).
Warlocks get a major overhaul, increase Ld to 9 for starters, they should have a bunch of always on powers like they do now and a couple of powers they have to roll to use. The list Xenith posted seems like a good start. If you combine Conceal (+1 to cover) with the Energy Shields then you end up with a decent backfield infantry unit which can take a few hits even if in the open, while firing off some heavy weapon shots on the move and using catapults to torrent anyone who comes in too close. Alternatively you could field them without the Warlock or Shields and they would still be usable to grab backfield objectives in cover. The cover save thing would possibly make them overlap a bit with Rangers/Pathfinders, but they still get infiltrate and a range of other bonuses. I would suggest making them more into assassin/disruption teams (still troops) similar to Wolf Scouts (they are often described the same way) in any case.

The squad sizes I can mostly agree with. Was thinking of making the platforms take up space instead of the 1 for every six guardians.

Now, I strongly disagree about armor save improvements not being viable. 4+ save is easily justifiable and fits with visually with their armour that is almost identical to the DA's and Banshee's.

Also, not a fan of the mobile Eldar lugging portable shield walls around. This, again, seems more Tau-ish than Eldar. I think their Speed and Psychic abilities should be their shield.

I Agree about the Warlocks needing an update and this seems like a good jumping off point. As to the Rangers and such, will get to them down the line.




@All Posters- I would like to open up the discussion on the Warlocks and what upgrades they might need. Both as a unit add-on and as a retinue.

Thanks

focusedfire wrote:
IMO, 6 Point Guardians is nine kinds of bad. Horde Eldar? Heck, Guardians should be limited to 10 man squads. The current availability of 20 man squads is so thouroughly counter to the concept of the Eldar that people never play the squads to that capacity. No, 8-10 point Guardians that are improved to be worth their points is the direction that I hope GW takes.

As to the idea of improving conceal, I'd rather that it just added +2 to any coversaves they take or even just gives the unit the Stealth USR.

If squad sizes were limited to 10 then you wouldnt have horde's, you'd have more points to put them in transports or spend more points on other units.
I wasn't suggesting IG style units of 40 for uber cheap throw away units, I was suggesting a way of making them viable for a cheaper point cost instead of just improving them and basically making them the same as DA's for 2 points less.

Giving guardians stealth is a bad idea IMO, thats what sets rangers appart from the other troop choices.

@Gwyidion - I think the whole reserves coming from most board edge's idea is brilliant, very eldar-y

focusedfire wrote:

Powerguy wrote: Eldar have the highest psychic density because every Eldar has some psychic ability, I believe on par with a IG Sanctioned psyker. The only trick is that not all of them are going to have powers which are actually helpful in battle. As such every Aspect getting some form of psychic power would work fine but Guardians (being militia) and other support units wouldn't, the only issue would be remembering to cast them. Linking them to Exarch abilities would probably be the best way to do this (giving more reason to actually take an Exarch), every Aspect would get two always on powers much like they have at the moment (except they should effect the whole squad in most cases) and a single psychic ability/boost which they have to roll for. Farseers and Warlocks obviously need a major boost as well.

I can see this, from both a fluff and game mechanics stand point, working only by being channeled through the Warlocks/Farseers. Fluff-wise the Eldar discipline themselves to a single path, refusing to use their natural abilities for anything but the path they are on. Game mechanic-wise you'll end up with an overly complicated system that may end up being a copy of the SoB Faith Point system.

Instead, I think something to the effect of, "The number of Eldar in the Squad boosts the warlock(insert psychic ability here) power". Doing it this way bumps the power level but if the Warlock fail the PotW test the unit loses all of the abilities. Having the warlocks channel the energy keeps them necessary.

Simply because Farseers, Warlocks and Shadowseer are the only ones to use psychic powers in the current list doesn't mean that other units can't be given some. As I mentioned all Eldar are psykers, the fact that they are following the Path doesn't suddenly change this so from a fluff perspective it is justifiable that a large number of units/models would have psychic powers. I agree that we should be avoiding a SOB Faith points type system which is a pain to keep track of though but in practice passing a Ld test and getting a short term benefit is completely different from keeping track of Faith points.

I do like the idea of using Warlocks as psychic boosters so to speak, I was thinking more of combining/linking them with a Farseer to boost his abilities actually. A Farseer can use a Warlock to boost his own abilities, if they are within 6" of each other the Warlock may chose to cast one of the Farseer's powers once per turn (and not use any of his own active powers that turn) using his own Ld, if he Perils it hits both of them. Probably limit this to 1 maybe 2 Warlocks per turn otherwise you end up with half the enemy army Doomed and all your units Guided, but otherwise this should be ok, you are using the Warlock's lower Ld to cast, have to be pretty close together to do it and can still be negated by psychic defense just the same. Also rather than using the Aspect Warrior psychic abilities I suggested, maybe just allow Warlocks to be added to Aspect Warrior squads as well? There isn't any fluff that I know of that goes against it and it gets psychic abilities more widespread in the list without ending up with a huge number of different users.

focusedfire wrote:

Powerguy wrote:Webway deployment as a special rule doesn't really make much sense implemented as you suggest. The webway is not like the warp, you enter and exit from set points and can't simply pop up whereever you want to (Eldar avoid entering the actual warp as much as possible in any case). It can still be added pretty easily though, just dust off the webway portal rules from the old CWE/DE codices, add rules to stop Wraithlords etc popping up in the middle of the board and you are set.

Not a huge fan of this my self. I could see it on a very limited basis, but only if it was somehow tied to the Harlequins.

A limited basis certainly but I would like to see it in the codex, even if it uses are very situational.

focusedfire wrote:

Powerguy wrote:The main reason I suggested a run and still shoot mechanic be added as an army wide special rule is that currently pretty much all our infantry units are ok at best and it adds mobility to make up for a lack of resilience. On the whole our vehicles need far less work, they are mostly overcosted but are otherwise both effective and fluffy. Having a large number of units outflanking is fine (it still needs to be slightly random though its too powerful as suggested currently), but it doesn't really help out our infantry units much at all, in fact without some major changes to the list it would make little difference to the lists you would see, as mech gets much better. Adding rules to make the Autarch's leadership abilities actually do something is great, but I wouldn't tie them in quite as closely with the Farseer as you have otherwise you are only going to see that combination of HQs, any combination of Seers, Autarch's and Phoenix Lords should be equally viable. Consider making these bonuses upgrades to the Autarch, by default have him add +1 to reserves and a re-roll for the choose sides/starting roll but allow upgrades to allow for Outflanking and other such stuff. Equally the Seer should probably allow a single re-roll for reserves/outflanking side per turn with upgrades to let him do more than that.

I think you are drastically under-estimating the benefit of the out-flanking deployment would have on foot troops.

You do have a good point about the HQ's being to slanted towards only a few choices, but want to talk about only one unit at a time. Have watched to many threads go out of control with no real benefit to those participating because everyone starts to wish-list. We will talk about the HQ's Right after we talk about Warlocks, which I think will be next.

I'm not trying to to derail the thread, but you can't look at units in an army in a vacuum, every unit has to complement other units in the codex without totally outclassing similar ones. You can go through and brainstorm for one unit at a time but you still have to factor in the rest of the list to some extent when you do it. For me the main thing that the next codex should do is make more than just 1-2 builds possible (atm we are stuck with Mechdar builds and slight variations to it), I want a strong, balanced and diverse codex which can compete with the other 5th edition lists.

The only possible bonus of out-flanking with foot troops that I can see is keeping them off the board to avoid being shot before they can fire and in practice I would far rather my units came on from my board edge in a unified group than coming on from the sides and possibly getting split up, so its hardly any different or better from standard reserving them (sure you can get into better positions with some units but they are harder to support). As a mentioned I don't think units should be automatically coming on from the sides wherever you want them to, it would be too overpowered, there has to be some element of chance to it. Of foot units that can currently outflank the only one I can think of that causes even a slight amount of concern to people are Genestealers. Basically the underlying issue is that foot troops are slow and have a small threat radius so you can easily deal with them, no one is going to care if a Guardian unit pops up on the flank all of a sudden because they can easily deal with it. Similarly the likes of Banshees and Scorpions won't suddenly become usable on foot if they have outflank, Scorpions already can get it and they don't work.
Units in transports in the other hand are definitely viable if they can Outflank, particularly given we are talking about fast skimmers in this case, they have a large threat radius and can get to wherever they need to go with additional protection. I think its a fair enough assumption that the general feel and theme of an Eldar army isn't going to change all of a sudden with the next codex, baring a major advancement in the storyline (almost everyone is dead and we are suddenly using Wraithguard everywhere) most units in the next codex will have some resemblance to the entry in the current codex, i.e I expect Serpents and Falcons to be similar to what they are like at the moment. So if a large number of units gain Outflank I'm sure as hell not going to start taking infantry all of a sudden, its just going to mean that my mech lists gain in power.

focusedfire wrote:

Powerguy wrote:Anyway I would cap Guardian squads at 12, let them take 1 heavy weapon per 6 models. Max 12 and 6 for the heavy weapon works better than 10 and 5 imo as it stops you taking two Heavy Weapons and a Warlock and a Serpent (if you can't fit you shouldn't be able to take one btw). As increasing their armour save isn't viable and making them faster somehow is tricky I would add some form of high tech defensive bonuses, thinking something like Energy Shields (ala DOW) a 3" long barrier which can be placed within 1" of the unit facing a direction which gives the unit cover from shooting (but only from that direction). Obviously wouldn't work against barrage weapons or attacks from behind them and you wouldn't need to roll terrain to run through it. Basically Guardians get a Wave Serpent energy field stuck on a platform.
Storm Guardians also change to max 12 but 1 special weapon per 5 models. Not really sure what else to do with them tbh, the only real apparent use for them is as a flamer delivery unit. I guess they could get the Energy Shield upgrade as well, but there isn't really an easy way to make them decent in assault other than maybe letting some of them take a couple of power weapons/fists (can't justify armour, WS or S increase and they aren't a horde unit).
Warlocks get a major overhaul, increase Ld to 9 for starters, they should have a bunch of always on powers like they do now and a couple of powers they have to roll to use. The list Xenith posted seems like a good start. If you combine Conceal (+1 to cover) with the Energy Shields then you end up with a decent backfield infantry unit which can take a few hits even if in the open, while firing off some heavy weapon shots on the move and using catapults to torrent anyone who comes in too close. Alternatively you could field them without the Warlock or Shields and they would still be usable to grab backfield objectives in cover. The cover save thing would possibly make them overlap a bit with Rangers/Pathfinders, but they still get infiltrate and a range of other bonuses. I would suggest making them more into assassin/disruption teams (still troops) similar to Wolf Scouts (they are often described the same way) in any case.

The squad sizes I can mostly agree with. Was thinking of making the platforms take up space instead of the 1 for every six guardians.

Now, I strongly disagree about armor save improvements not being viable. 4+ save is easily justifiable and fits with visually with their armour that is almost identical to the DA's and Banshee's.

Also, not a fan of the mobile Eldar lugging portable shield walls around. This, again, seems more Tau-ish than Eldar. I think their Speed and Psychic abilities should be their shield.

I agree making the platforms take up a space would work better, it stops you running a fully loaded up unit (with a Warlock and 2 heavy weapons) if you want to be in a Serpent.

4+ for Guardians is definitely a bad idea, I can't emphasis this enough tbh. If Guardians gain a 4+ normal save then there is absolutely no reason at all to ever take Avengers in an Eldar list, the only thing they would have going for them at this point is an 18" range on their standard weapons rather than 12". The Guardians would be just as tough, if not more so with a Warlock giving them cover or other buffs and would end up with similar combat abilities thanks to the Warlock. They also would have the same Ld but most importantly they would have 2 heavy weapons which they could move and shoot making them a far superior choice both on foot or in a transport. If this happened I would expect to see a swing back to the 3rd edition Codex era, where no one ever took Avengers you could get Guardians with a heavy weapon instead (except you would get two heavy weapons and be just as hard to kill). It would also make tri flamer Storm Guardians a superior choice to both these option, give them a Serpent so they are mobile and they would put out impressive damage (as they do now) and actually stand a chance of surviving return fire. I can except alternative ways to make them harder to kill, such as cover or invulnerable saves due to high tech armour or something, but Dire Avengers still need to be the main Eldar troop choice in most armies, Guardians are supposed to be support units which let the Aspect Warriors do the hard work and then grab objectives late game.

Its not really a Tau concept as its a horizontal shield rather than a drone. Its something which already exists in DOW and in any case it would be on a grav platform so moving it isn't an issue. The problem is that Tau and Eldar are similar in many respects, they are both technologically advanced mobile armies which aim to overwhelm one unit at a time. As you mentioned Speed and Psychic abilities (as well as having everything in the army being orders of magnitude better in combat) are the main things which set them apart but as it stands Guardians have no notable speed advantage or psychic abilities which are really going to help them survive, they can avoid fire a bit by being reserved or outflanking, but are still going to die as soon as they actually get shot at. One possible way around this I mention below.

focusedfire wrote:
I Agree about the Warlocks needing an update and this seems like a good jumping off point. As to the Rangers and such, will get to them down the line.

I would boost Warlocks to Ld9 for starters, give them I5 (I actually think all Eldar could be made I5, even Guardians) but otherwise the statline and equipment options should stay much the same the main thing which needs expanding is the number of powers available. Ideally I think Warlocks should be able to choose/use one always on power and one active power which requires a Ld test per turn. Most of these powers should be low powered versions of what the Farseers can use, but I suggest Farseers should also be able to have access to the active Warlock powers if they want to (or Warlocks get access to the weaker Farseer powers depending on how you do it). Conceal changes to Stealth but stays an always on power, Embolden and Enhance stay as they are. Add another always on power which increases the BS of a single model in the unit by 1(or 2?) and another which gives the units defensive grenades. For active powers I would have Destructor (as is just requires a test), Eldritch Storm (exactly as it is in the current codex, the Farseer version should get a boost) and a power which make the Warlock's attacks power weapon attacks (as Xenith suggested). As a way to get around the Guardians (well most Eldar infantry really) dying too easily problem, I'm floating the suggestion that Warlocks get given a power which work like either some version of the Veil of Tears/Nightfight rule or adds 6" to the range ala Dark Eldar NightShields. Obviously this would be one of the active powers. While it won't be a guaranteed method of defense, it seems better to make Eldar harder to hit in the first place rather than increasing the chance of them surviving if they do get hit as it fits their style better. For Guardian units this would work well, used as a backfield unit you should be able to keep them out of the worst of enemy fire, you can try using them up close but they won't work as effectively.
Since Warlocks are also a unit in their own right they need a few tweaks in that regard as well. I don't think Seer Councils should be hammer units, really they should be support units which can use huge numbers of psychic powers per turn. I would possibly limit the max unit size to 5, but allow them to be taken as an Elites choice (without a Farseer) as well if you want to. Taking them on jetbikes should still be possible but with smaller units they won't be as threatening as the DeathStar JetCouncils in the current codex (Shining Spears can be buffed to make up for it, as well as introducing a couple of new upgrade options to Jetbikes). Combined with changes to their psychic powers their roles should change fairly smoothly.

Roughly speaking:

Defender Guardian Squad 64 points.
Squad size 8.
Each Defender Guardian squad must be joined with at least one weapons platform and may also be joined with a second, optional, platform. Each weapons platform is manned by two Guardians Weapons Crew, the platform's cost varies depending on platform.

This limits the squad to 13 models at most, 11 models minimum. I still feel they are fragile and/or offer low firepower for the points.

The idea with psychic powers was just an idea. I'm afraid I deleted the bit where I wrote it was food for thought when I cleaned the post up a bit.

I do like the idea of "all Eldar units may run in the shooting (assault?) phase, regardless if they have fired their weapons" as this also adress, somewhat, the Reaper's immobility. In their case, it's more like walk-and-fire rather than move-and-fire since they still may not move in the movement phase.

To fix Dark Reapers I think all they need is the relentless USR and a slight point cost cut.

For Guardians I'd suggest somthing allong the lines of:

Defender Guardians: 7 points per model

WS 3 BS 3 S3 T3 W1 I5 Ld 8 Sv 5+

Squad size: 10
Incudes: shuriken catapult platform
Can be upgraded to: Scatter laser, Brightlance, EML, Starcannon, suriken cannon (for same cost as now)
Can take an additional heavy weapons platform for 10 points + cost of weapon.

Can be joined by a warlock 20 points


Thoughts?

Throw one alternative much like Lesser Daemons.

Troop choice that doesn't use a troop slot.
Leave as is but limit squad to Say 10 or 12.
Lower the cost to 6 per plus the weapon.

Other is to give them the grenades (ala SM) for free.

So for about 90 pts you can put out a squad of 2 shuriken cannons and 10 to 12 guardians.

If you want them in a vehicle or add a warlock they take up a troop slot again.

Would have to look at balance but perhaps make the HW platforms an option here also.

Aspect warriors A = 2 if every veteran marine gets 2 attacks I think a dedicated aspect warrior should get the same.

An important fix for guardians is the weapon. The current unit would be way better if their weapon wasn't R12".

In order to avoid having to change the model for guardians, change the fluff so that guardians use a small-caliber s. catapult, and DAs use a large-caliber cat - so that guardians S.catapults are S3 AP5 R24" and DA cats are S4 AP5 R18". I agree that a smaller squad size is best, because eldar are not a horde army.

Powerguy wrote:
Simply because Farseers, Warlocks and Shadowseer are the only ones to use psychic powers in the current list doesn't mean that other units can't be given some. As I mentioned all Eldar are psykers, the fact that they are following the Path doesn't suddenly change this so from a fluff perspective it is justifiable that a large number of units/models would have psychic powers. I agree that we should be avoiding a SOB Faith points type system which is a pain to keep track of though but in practice passing a Ld test and getting a short term benefit is completely different from keeping track of Faith points.


I do like the idea of using Warlocks as psychic boosters so to speak, I was thinking more of combining/linking them with a Farseer to boost his abilities actually. A Farseer can use a Warlock to boost his own abilities, if they are within 6" of each other the Warlock may chose to cast one of the Farseer's powers once per turn (and not use any of his own active powers that turn) using his own Ld, if he Perils it hits both of them. Probably limit this to 1 maybe 2 Warlocks per turn otherwise you end up with half the enemy army Doomed and all your units Guided, but otherwise this should be ok, you are using the Warlock's lower Ld to cast, have to be pretty close together to do it and can still be negated by psychic defense just the same. Also rather than using the Aspect Warrior psychic abilities I suggested, maybe just allow Warlocks to be added to Aspect Warrior squads as well? There isn't any fluff that I know of that goes against it and it gets psychic abilities more widespread in the list without ending up with a huge number of different users.

1)The Path means that, exactly. The Eldar Will not use their Psychic abilities unless they are on the path of the Seer. If you need a reason then think about this, Untrained Psykers using Psychic Powers=Many PotW tests, Failed PotW Test = Being Sucked into the Warp to be devoured by Slaanesh

2)Think of the Eldar Pyschic Energy as a well that the Farseers and Warlocks draw from. If you look at it like this then it is simple to buff the strength of their powers without really changing much else.

Powerguy wrote:
I'm not trying to to derail the thread, but you can't look at units in an army in a vacuum, every unit has to complement other units in the codex without totally outclassing similar ones. You can go through and brainstorm for one unit at a time but you still have to factor in the rest of the list to some extent when you do it. For me the main thing that the next codex should do is make more than just 1-2 builds possible (atm we are stuck with Mechdar builds and slight variations to it), I want a strong, balanced and diverse codex which can compete with the other 5th edition lists.

The only possible bonus of out-flanking with foot troops that I can see is keeping them off the board to avoid being shot before they can fire and in practice I would far rather my units came on from my board edge in a unified group than coming on from the sides and possibly getting split up, so its hardly any different or better from standard reserving them (sure you can get into better positions with some units but they are harder to support). As a mentioned I don't think units should be automatically coming on from the sides wherever you want them to, it would be too overpowered, there has to be some element of chance to it. Of foot units that can currently outflank the only one I can think of that causes even a slight amount of concern to people are Genestealers. Basically the underlying issue is that foot troops are slow and have a small threat radius so you can easily deal with them, no one is going to care if a Guardian unit pops up on the flank all of a sudden because they can easily deal with it. Similarly the likes of Banshees and Scorpions won't suddenly become usable on foot if they have outflank, Scorpions already can get it and they don't work.
Units in transports in the other hand are definitely viable if they can Outflank, particularly given we are talking about fast skimmers in this case, they have a large threat radius and can get to wherever they need to go with additional protection. I think its a fair enough assumption that the general feel and theme of an Eldar army isn't going to change all of a sudden with the next codex, baring a major advancement in the storyline (almost everyone is dead and we are suddenly using Wraithguard everywhere) most units in the next codex will have some resemblance to the entry in the current codex, i.e I expect Serpents and Falcons to be similar to what they are like at the moment. So if a large number of units gain Outflank I'm sure as hell not going to start taking infantry all of a sudden, its just going to mean that my mech lists gain in power.

1)Your not understanding where I am coming from. I am using a procedural unit by unit analysis to generate Ideas for what are considered to be the problem units first, then the Army as a whole seccond. Once that is done then you take the ideas and adjust for possible conflicts with other units. Now it is ok to discuss how these ideas may affect or intrude upon other units usefulness, but do not want Ideas for other units being introduced(Yet). You were starting to introduce ideas for units that were not the current or a previous topic. If the format for this discussion is to restrictive for you then I am sorry, but I am not going to change it.

2)I understand about the need for synergy because my primary army is Tau. The difference between the Eldar and the Tau(Aside from assault capability) is that the Tau are much more reliant upon an Army wide combined arms approach to deal with threats, while the Eldar approach is more geared towards the application of the correct Specialist units in precisely timed strikes. The Eldar still has and requires inter-unit support, as does every army, but the required level of such support is nowhere near the level of the Tau's. This is why the Out-flanking would help all Eldar units.

3)Everyone posting in this thread is looking to expand the number of viable builds. We all want a diverse codex with many viable builds, but these builds will still need to be Eldar.

4)Your not getting the Idea behind the outflank. The Eldar Army Wide Version would not be up to chance. There would be no rolling to see which side the unit emergers on. Think about this for a minute. The Eldar are limited in the number of units they can field and this problem is only exacerbated when having to buy transport in order to safely get these few units to where they need to be. You now have something that will deliver these(Scoring) units to within objectives range without requiring the purchase of a 140 point Wave Serpent.
You have already noted that this would be great for the Eldar Vehicles. Now think about a Guardian Squad with Bright Lances coming in for rear armour shots. Think about a cheap objective claiming unit that sprints on from the board edge.
This rule would need some balancing. Something like non-fleet units, Slow and Purposeful units, and MC's do not get to use this rule. Otherwise, I feel it fits.

5) As to your point about the next codex.....The Eldar Skimmers could get the same point increase as the Carnifex and the Leman Russ. Most of the new Codices have, on the surface, looked similar to their predecessors but have ended up being drastically different. These differences have included significant re-statting and tailoring of the Special Characters to allow for differing viable builds Repointing of older Favored Units, and bringing an older under performing unit up to being competitive.

Powerguy wrote:4+ for Guardians is definitely a bad idea, I can't emphasis this enough tbh. If Guardians gain a 4+ normal save then there is absolutely no reason at all to ever take Avengers in an Eldar list, the only thing they would have going for them at this point is an 18" range on their standard weapons rather than 12". The Guardians would be just as tough, if not more so with a Warlock giving them cover or other buffs and would end up with similar combat abilities thanks to the Warlock. They also would have the same Ld but most importantly they would have 2 heavy weapons which they could move and shoot making them a far superior choice both on foot or in a transport. If this happened I would expect to see a swing back to the 3rd edition Codex era, where no one ever took Avengers you could get Guardians with a heavy weapon instead (except you would get two heavy weapons and be just as hard to kill). It would also make tri flamer Storm Guardians a superior choice to both these option, give them a Serpent so they are mobile and they would put out impressive damage (as they do now) and actually stand a chance of surviving return fire. I can except alternative ways to make them harder to kill, such as cover or invulnerable saves due to high tech armour or something, but Dire Avengers still need to be the main Eldar troop choice in most armies, Guardians are supposed to be support units which let the Aspect Warriors do the hard work and then grab objectives late game.

Its not really a Tau concept as its a horizontal shield rather than a drone. Its something which already exists in DOW and in any case it would be on a grav platform so moving it isn't an issue. The problem is that Tau and Eldar are similar in many respects, they are both technologically advanced mobile armies which aim to overwhelm one unit at a time. As you mentioned Speed and Psychic abilities (as well as having everything in the army being orders of magnitude better in combat) are the main things which set them apart but as it stands Guardians have no notable speed advantage or psychic abilities which are really going to help them survive, they can avoid fire a bit by being reserved or outflanking, but are still going to die as soon as they actually get shot at. One possible way around this I mention below.

1)Go back an reread the proposed changes,...all of them. Guardian defenders would get the first Rapid Fire weapons in the Eldar army and these weapons would be S 3. Even if the weapon stays an assault it would still be viable with a profile of range 18" S 3 AP 5 Assault 1. The defenders new job would be not to over-whelm with small arms fire but to provide Support Weapons Fire while being a somewhat mobile scoring unit. This does not make them as good as DA's, just different.

2)As to the Storm Guardians, my current proposed version of them has them at 6" less range, Firing 1 shot less, and not as good in HtH as the DA's. You mentioned the Triple flamer attack, but they have that now and it isn't OP. Boosting BS has no effect on flamers, 4+ save doesn't make them OP( just gives them a chance against AP 5 shooting), and if WS is bumped you change the Warlocks Enhance power to being something like preferred enemy or furious assault.
Storm Guardians are a Jack of all trades unit that can be tailored to adequately fill different battlefield rolls but di not really excell in any due to limited strength, toughness, and weapons. This does not make them superior, just different.

3)In your analysis you neglected that I proposed the guardians be 10 points each. With base cost and upgrades they will cost the same as DA's while serving different rolls. You also failed to take into account the Exarch and how his abilities will be updated to fit 5th ed.

4)In your reply concerning the shielding you mentioned that the Guardians don't have any notable abilities to help them survive. I think when Conceal is updated that will replace any need for a shield platform.

Powerguy wrote:Warlocks

I will reply to this later

Mahtamori wrote:Defender Guardian Squad 64 points.
Squad size 8.
Each Defender Guardian squad must be joined with at least one weapons platform and may also be joined with a second, optional, platform. Each weapons platform is manned by two Guardians Weapons Crew, the platform's cost varies depending on platform.

This limits the squad to 13 models at most, 11 models minimum. I still feel they are fragile and/or offer low firepower for the points.

The idea with psychic powers was just an idea. I'm afraid I deleted the bit where I wrote it was food for thought when I cleaned the post up a bit.

I do like the idea of "all Eldar units may run in the shooting (assault?) phase, regardless if they have fired their weapons" as this also adress, somewhat, the Reaper's immobility. In their case, it's more like walk-and-fire rather than move-and-fire since they still may not move in the movement phase.

1)The Guardians will still need a boost to their survivabilty and due to such will need a corresponding points increase to about 10 points per model. The rest lloks good. I could go with this or with limiting the squad size even more by making the platforms each take a space in the transport and follow up the GW thing of needing a full unit to buy the second platform.

2)That's cool. The Psychic abilities are an open area for discussion due to the warlocks being an upgradeable part of the Guardian Squads

3)I strongly disagree with the Eldar ever getting any form of JSJ again. I disagree with the Jet-bikes getting it and IMO CTM was pure OP cheese. Any unit with long ranged low ap weapons should not get it(Gaurdian defenders) and an army with good HtH does not need it. This is something that should be left to the Tau, unless everyone thinks that the Tau should get Eldar Jet-bikes and good HtH.

As to the Dark Reapers Make them Slow and Purposeful with the Exarch improving them to relentless would be good, if we were dicussing them right now.

Slow and Purposeful are relentless, although I know what you mean. I'm not sure Slow and Purposeful or Relentless are exactly the USR package we're looking for, since it also allows them to shoot heavy weapons and then assault, which I don't agree they should.

Back to Guardians. The way I see it, and the way Eldar has developed, is that they are mobile volume of fire. Just loads of medium-high strength shots. Most Eldar technology no longer focus on AP the way Eldar were described in 3rd edition, but rather on number of shots. Personally, I don't quite see how to make Defender Guardians viable for their own performance without causing conflict with Dire Avengers.
Essentially, Defender Guardians are crew. Crew for heavy weapon platforms, crew for support platforms, crew for vehicles. As such, their survival is more important. They'll stand back, provide support fire, claim objectives. It's the Dire Avenger's job to provide close range support and at worst a tar-pit against assault units (shimmershield and Defend can slow them down quite a bit). It's not to the point where they get into conflict with Wraithguard, either!
I just think that if a unit of Guardians can provide a decent enough unit to provide more volume of fire platforms, they have a niche. Extra survival, however, is still key.

Honestly, I think Storm Guardians in particular needs a bit of testing at simply 4+ save. It could work wonders and not really merit any more changes.

Is Jetbike Guardians part of this yet? If so, CC weapon and pistol? One of their drawbacks is that they simply don't have a punch in melee.

Edit: JSJ would only affect a limited number of units, namely Guardians, Dire Avengers, Swooping Hawks. The others aren't really shooters and for Reapers and Rangers you'd need to remove a J from the JSJ abbreviation.

These are the results of 12 storm guardians against 12 guardsmen. ( I have used the Heresy Combat Calculator to get the results)

Storms killed 4 in shooting and 4 in close combat on average

Guardsmen killed 3 in shooting(rapidfire) and about 2 in close combat on average

So I think with the results Mahtamori is right storm guardians are good with a 4+ save and I think defender guardians can be made be better this way to but it my be to much and might make dire avengers almost useless.

@nathan2195-Could you plug in WS 4 BS 4 but no enhance or Guiding. What are the results against SoB Battle Sisters?

for 10 storms Vs 10 SoB
about 1 killed in shooting and 4 died (rapidfire)
about 2 killed in close combat and 1 died
for 10 defenders Vs 10 SoB
about 3 killed in shooting and 4 died(rapidfire)
about 1 killed in close combat and 1 died

Anything else? I can put more than one weapon and/or unit in a phase.

@Nathan-Did you add the 4+ armour save also? If not I should have been more specific.

I've been thinking that if Sisters and Guardians are almost the same price that up close the should have deal close to the same damage.

If you don't mind, I'd like to see the numbers for these stat lines:

Storms armed as they currently are with WS 4 BS 4 Sv 4+

And Defenders armed with a S 3 Ap 5 Assault 2 weapon with WS 4 BS 4 Sv 4+

If you could run these stats against the Sisters and a few of others of your choosing, I would appreciate it. Would like to know what you would think of them at 10 pts each. Would they need to cost more, be spot on, or over-costed?

Thanks

Aside from the ruling vaguaries, I would love some concept sketches of how these would look...

Im already tempted to construct one of each... though the SHawk ones is a bit of a challenge...

Exodites have been done and there is a PDF floating around for you to find... and enough concepts and completed examples on sites, like CMoN.

Off-Topic

@AvatarForm- Think of a smaller scale Revenant Titan w/ wings for the SW Lord.

I converted one of my old metal lords to a crouching position and carrying a Spear. I cut the back off of the Whale shaped head and tuned into a shoulder piece. All I've got left to do is to make the dreadlocks and paint him for my Scorpion Lord.

I'm torn between which I would like to do next. A Reaper Lord or a Spider Lord?

BTW,The drawing that I would really love to see would be the Banshee's Riding on the back of the Vypers. I don't have the skills to draw what is in my mind but there are others who can.

On-Topic-

Any ideas you would like to throw out?

focusedfire wrote:@Nathan-Did you add the 4+ armour save also? If not I should have been more specific.

I've been thinking that if Sisters and Guardians are almost the same price that up close the should have deal close to the same damage.

If you don't mind, I'd like to see the numbers for these stat lines:

Storms armed as they currently are with WS 4 BS 4 Sv 4+

And Defenders armed with a S 3 Ap 5 Assault 2 weapon with WS 4 BS 4 Sv 4+

If you could run these stats against the Sisters and a few of others of your choosing, I would appreciate it. Would like to know what you would think of them at 10 pts each. Would they need to cost more, be spot on, or over-costed?

Thanks

The heresy calculator is a bit ungainly, but.. .Keep in mind that these weapons can't damage vehicles! The change from S4 to S3 is huge in that respect!

S3 AP5 A2 shurikens

Guardians kill 2 Sisters, or equivalent. T3 Sv3+
Guardians kill 6 Guardsmen with high chance of extra, or equivalent. T3 Sv5+, 6+, or -
Guardians kill 1 Spess Mahren, or equivalent. T4 Sv3+
Guardians kill 4 Ork Boys, or equivalent. T4, Sv5+, 6+, or -

Boltgun (BS4 S4 AP5, 6, or -) in rapid fire has a potential of killing 4 Guardians.
Lasgun (BS3 S3 AP5, 6, or -) has a potential of killing 3 Guardians.
Shootas (BS2 S4 AP5, 6, or -) has a potential of killing 2 Guardians.

Foot note: I made the assumption that whoever did the shooting got to shoot first. If we add distances in there, the Lasgun and Boltgun fire would, in a void, kill half as many Guardians as listed before Guardians got to shoot, drastically decreasing the numbers the Guardians could inflict.

Who gets to shoot first is very important. At strength 3 and comparing with the performance of the guns other races use, I'd say quite simply that Guardians are still inferior per model to all of the compared models except Guardsmen. At strength 4 the field evens a bit more in a straight void shooting and I'd say they are equivalent of Sisters of Battle and decidedly better than Guardsmen. Ork Boys have significantly better melee, Spess Mahrens are still and should still be in a league of their own (per model).
Honestly, even at 18" assault 2 standard Shuricat, I can't really say whether a Guardian Defender is too cheap or not in a void. I do realize that they might be intruding on Dire Avengers.
What these comparisons really show, though, if you keep Dire Avengers at the back of your mind, is that it might still be better designing Defender Guardians around VoF from platforms, rather than performance of their own. At least, this is the conclusion I draw.

This is the current ideal I have:

Defender Guardian Team 40 points.
WS 3, BS 3, S 3, T 3, W 1, I 4, A 1, LD 8, SV 4+
Squad: 2 to 4 teams.
Each team consist of five Defender Guardians and one weapons platform. Each weapons platform in the squad must be upgraded with a heavy weapon chosen from the list below (not actually going to type the list out) and the squad may be joined by a Warlock for X points.

@Mahtamori-I wasn't pushing the Defender weapon as the primary strength but more of a way to balance/tone-down the defenders.

I agree that their primary purpose should revolve around the weapon platform but disagree with possible unit sizes of 20+models.

My math so far has guardians at WS 4 BS 4 and Sv 4+ being effective but still diferent that the DA's. The only models that would become OP by this and I had planned on moving that unit to FA and twin-linking its weapons.

^Was thinking only the Banshees and the Harlequins would get to ride the Vypers. It fits with their style.

Not a Vyper, but a Venom.
This is a fast skimmer in the experimental Harlequin codex. Its open topped and can transport 6 men plus 1 IC.

@ Western-Don't want the Venom. I want the Vypers with a transport capacity of 2 per model.

You could still call them the Venom, but transport capacity should be where you have to purchase more than one 35 point model(Eldar are not IG or SM) to get a squad across the table.

There is also a visual aspect to this that is important to me.

focusedfire wrote:@ Western-Don't want the Venom. I want the Vypers with a transport capacity of 2 per model.

You could still call them the Venom, but transport capacity should be where you have to purchase more than one 35 point model(Eldar are not IG or SM) to get a squad across the table.

There is also a visual aspect to this that is important to me.

That would cause a whole load of problems...what if one vyper is destroyed? does the whole squad have to get out? do the vypers have to travel at the same speed as the rest of the unit? I honestly think it wouldnt work at all.


On another point. To make guardians different to DA's you could give them 24" rapid fire weapons as standard and allow for 1 heave weapon platform. That would encourage them to sit back and defend objectives whilst the DA's take the task of flying around the board and attacking. Gives them very different role's so one wont just be seen as superior and pretty much void the whole point of there being 2 different troop choices. Maybe BS4 for defender guardians, WS4 for storm guardians?

It's covered in the other thread. There is a precedent for how to handle squads of transports with the Tau Piranha. I think the rule is everybody out if one is destroyed.

Mahtomori has the right of it. I think the rule would need tweeking to account for the Banshees being intelligent enough to know to not jump off after having moved fast leaving only the models on the destroyed vehicle as insta-killed. Or could make acrobatic make the disembarkation a dangerous terrain test for these models.

Just a couple of ideas.


Now, What about the warlocks? They are good, but should maybe be better?

Gorechild had some interesting ideas, anyone else?

You cant make lock's that much better, doing too much to them intending help improve guardians/wraithguard ect would also make seer councils even more powerful. I think warlocks are pretty sound as they are.

Units that do need fixing (IMO)- Pheonix lords, Hawks, Reapers, Shining spears, Banshees, Vypers, Wraithlords, Falcons? Farseers, Autarch, Rangers, Avatar? Warp Spiders.

What does anyone else think?

Suggestion: Avatar of Khaine 180 points
same stats but 2+ armour 4+ inv sv.
same special rules + God of War : All the Avatar's attacks allocated on a model with a weapon skill value of 4 or lower hit automatically. Weapon skill 5 is hit on 2+, weapon skills above 5 are hit on 2+

You like?

I'd put Spiders down as needing a review as well. I'm not advocating a huge change, but they are a tad situational for their points.

As for Warlocks, maybe not make them better, you don't really need to make it Herohammer (WHFB 5:th ed), but maybe a review on points costs for psychic powers in general, as well as their effects and range. Again, not necessarily a points trip, but is Mind War really worth so much more in an Eldar army than an equivalent power in a Marine army?

Warp spiders added.

I reckon a small point drop to warlock powers would be sufficient if they need anything at all. Or completely re-doing them could be an option to make them more powerful, considering locks are meant to be the psychic warriors for the most psychicly powerful race in the galaxy it wouldnt be unreasonable.
Just a note mind war is a farseer power, not a warlock power. IMO seers need huge improvement. they work well at the moment but are simply outclassed as far as psychic power goes since other codecies have been released.

Thoughts on the avatar?

@Gorechild-We will get to those other units soon.

Since the subject of the Warlocks has already been broached, I figure it is time to talk about them.

Now, talking about them doesn't necessarily mean vastly improving them. It could mean a redefining or refocusing of rhe unit. Part of the problem with the Eldar codex is that some of the units are too good in areas that they shouldn't be. Case in point with the Warlocks:

Should Warlocks (Joined to Guardians) be geared primarily towards buffing a units stats or assault capabilities? No
Should Warlocks (Seer Council) be a better assault squad than the Banshee's? No
Should Warlocks (Seer Council) be better Jet-bike units than the Shining Spears? No

Should Warlocks provide Psychic defenses for the units they join? Yes
Should warlocks be a synergy unit that helps tie the Eldar into a more cohesive force? Yes
Should Warlocks (Seer Council) be they most scarily effective psyker squad in the game? Yes


As things stand, the warlocks either have Psychic powers that are on the right track but still need boosting, that should be natural abilities as opposed to powers, or that just need to be gotten rid of in favor powers that showcase them as psykers. Lets look at the possible changes:

Conceal- Totally worthless in 5th ed. Should either be a +1 to cover(Stealth) or should be renamed to "Protect" and provide a 5+ Inv save for the unit(this I like)

Destructor- Pretty darn good as it is but could easily be adjusted to shoot like the Hellhounds Inferno cannon. Could possibly make the strength variable but not sure which way would be best to do so.

Embolden- Should not be a power but merely an effect of the Warlocks presesnce within the unit. Should be replaced with:
"Psychic Parry(Or This is our House )- A lesser form of mind war, this power allows a warlock to attempt to nullify any enemy power that requires a Pyschic test to use. If the the attacking enemy model and the Warlock are with 18" of each other then both will roll a d6 and add their leadership. If the warlock rolls less than the attacker the the power will work as normal but if the Warlock rolls higher the power is nullified. If the Warlock rolls a 6 then the power is automatcaly nullified and the warlock causes a wound to his opponent."

Enhance- (getting ready for the outrage)Needs to be dumped. It is OP when applied to the Seer Council and is one of the reasons why we see the same lists over and over. It should be replaced with an ability to cloud their opponents minds that works like an anti-furious assault. Something like:
"Confusion- The enemy units initiative and number of attacks is reduced by 1 by this power but the power does not stack."


What do you think?

Generally speaking, Warlocks and Farseers could do with a basic power from the word go, and then add on to that one for choice. A Warlock having innate Embolden is good, since they are a sergeant unit with no better leadership than the most basic troop.

While on the subject, and this thought may be more appropriate for an Ulthwé army, Warlocks as attachable characters for any infantry unit? (Similar to how Wave Serpents can be bought for all infantry except FA, clowns and reapers) The current Warlock powers supports the aspect warriors as well - stick one down in a Striking Scorion squad to improve cover save, Banshee squad to reduce morale vulnerability or Shining Spears to provide additional softening-up with a flamer. The Guardians could have Black Guardians as troop leaders instead, although, yes, they are Ulthwé specific.

I'm liking the idea of destructor being similar to hellhounds, maybe 6" or 12" range only though. As you were saying about variable strength... it could be S5 AP4 if the small end of the template is touching the warlock's base or S4 AP5 if fired at range? Keeps it the same but also gives you the option of hitting things if you are out of range.

I was just skimming through some of the ideas people have posted and mashed two of them together, an eldar version (but better, because they should have more promminent psychic abillity than marines) of psychic hood's. Runes of <insert a decent name here> :Any enemy psycher that successfully passes a psychic test within 24" of a model with Runes of <insert a decent name here> is automatically hit by a "Mind War" psychic power, if the result of the enemy's LD + D6 is greater than that of the eldar player, the power may be used. If the result of the eldar player exceed's that rolled by their opponent, the opponent suffers that number of wounds (as per the rules for Mind War) and may not use that (or any other) psychic powers for the rest of the turn.

Its horribly written but im sure you get the gist

Craftworld specific rules should be avoided imo, they seem to be being phased out of all codex books (short of making whole seperate codexes). If we are trying to diversify the eldar codex so it can be used in lots of different builds, I dont think it should have any solid restrictions in pllace. ymmv though.

I am suprised. I thought people would howl at the proposed removal of enhance.


@Gorechild- I get what you are saying about the Craftworld specific rules. Unfortunately, with GW's current trend in codices I doubt they will ever expand the Eldar in that manner again.

Currently, The best we can hope for is some kind of Farsight style rules included in the next Eldar Codex.

@focused- I wasnt suggesting that it would be a good idea to have seperate codex's or constraining different craftworlds to different units. I play Ulthwe because I love the fluff and painting is quick but looks awesome. If all of a sudden I was only allowed guardians, warlock and farseer's I'd give up on them and go back to playing with my chaos 90% of the time like I used to. It's the diversity and the variety for painting that (I think) draws many Eldar players in, confine what you can have in an army and I can see a lot of that support falling away.

Here's a few suggestions:

Guardians - Black Guardians. Even though an Ulthwé concept from 3rd edition, up to two Guardian units may be upgraded to Black Guardians. Storm variety gain Infiltrate and maybe Move Through Cover, Defender variety gain Fearless. The upgrade cost points per model, and the thought is that the unit's kill-power shouldn't be improved, but otherwise attach special rules to it. Additionally, the thought is to add a bit more punching power to a foot or hybrid list while not really adding much to a mech list.

Warlock - Conceal instead grants Stealth. Maybe have it additionally read "and the unit is always treated as being in light cover for purposes of shooting". Could alternatively give it the same rules as Veil of Tears, but that might be a bit powerful and make it mandatory to the extreme.

Mahtamori wrote:
Warlock - Conceal instead grants Stealth. Maybe have it additionally read "and the unit is always treated as being in light cover for purposes of shooting".

This I like. I think its very reasonable and doesnt divert hugely from the current rules, it just makes it better.

Mahtamori wrote: Could alternatively give it the same rules as Veil of Tears, but that might be a bit powerful and make it mandatory to the extreme.

This I really dislike unless it costed a LOAD of points it would mean DA's wouldnt be used. If a seer council used it they would be even more insane!

Seeing as we all seem to agree about the warlocks in and of them selves. It is now time to move to the Farseers and how the warlocks should interact with them.

So What should happen to the Farsseer and his Seer council if the warlock powers are changed as we have discussed?

I think both the Warlocks and Farseers are good as they are. What really needs addressing is the powers themselves. There are two major points for Farseer powers as I see it:
1. They pay a premium for them, both in their basic cost and in the cost for each additional power.
2. Several powers are cumbersome to use.

Here's a few thoughts:
* Fortune, Eldritch Storm, and Guide could use a 6" range improvement so that the Farseer doesn't have to literally sit on the target.
* Mind War could use some stream-lining. Easiest way might be; psychic shooting attack, pick one model in line of sight, wounds on 2+ instant death on 6, ignores armour.*
* Eldritch Storm could use a bit of stream lining and reliability as well. It currently rolls 2D6+3 for penetration, which is unreliable to the extreme. A few options; always cause glancing, never penetrates vehicles just rotate them, improve basic strength on vehicles? Equalize it to Master of Ordinance power, but in a weaker assault form (unlimited range)?

As for the Farseer itself...
* Increase the basic cost by 10 or 15, reduce the cost of each power by 10. This makes having power redundancy less punishing.
* If we assume Spirit Stones are mandatory anyway (does anyone take a Farseer without one?): remove Spirit Stone as optional Wargear, increase Farseer cost to 80, reduce all power costs by 10.
* Mind War as standard/free power?

Warlock Enhance - I'm very uncertain about this one, mostly since I've never ended up using it.

* If you attack the target's mind, and not the body, how can a cover save apply?

@Mahtomori- I agree about the cover save. Pure stupidity, IMO.

I like your suggestions in general. I am wondering. "How you feel about a strength in numbers ability?". Something where the number of Eldar or warlocks in the army affects the strength of the power. Could also tie it to a rage function where the strength modifier is based off of the number of X units/ models casualties.

Your thoughts?

@Mahtomori- I like your ideas about the increase in basic points for farseers but lowering power costs. I also agree with the increased range for guide ect. about mind war; I dont think it needs streamining, its not difficult to add a D6 to your leadership and compair them. It makes it brilliant for sniping important models from big squads at the moment. about the cover saves though, i competey agree!

somthing I'd like to throw into the mix...How about a "Confuse" farseer power. Could be siilar to Lash of Submission, or an idea I like the idea of would be to automaticaly pin an enemy unit within 24" if you pass a psychic test. The target unit automatically counts as having failed their pinning test or somthing? could bring a different tactical aspect to farseers, being able to bog down the enemy

Gorechild, I was toying with the idea that Enhance could be replaced with a confuse power, but it would be more melee oriented like "opponent add 1 to rolls to hit on the Warlock or the Warlock's squad". One tiny problem with pinning is the amount of models immune to it, as well as the fact that Eldar already have countless units with pinning weapons (EML, Reaper exarch, rangers, Eldritch Storm, etc etc).
Could have it read something different. "Targeted enemy non-vehicle unit has their minds invaded by strange lights and phantom voices, the dead come back to life and long lost friend haunt them. For their next player phase the unit will count as having failed night fighting check and treat all terrain as difficult, they are effectively blind." Alterations on the same theme could work, such as "LD test or no move next turn."

focusedfire wrote:@Mahtomori- I agree about the cover save. Pure tupidity, IMO.

I like your suggestions in general. I am wondering. "How you feel about a strength in numbers ability?". Something where the number of Eldar or warlocks in the army affects the strength of the power. Could also tie it to a rage function where the strength modifier is based off of the number of X units/ models casualties.

Your thoughts?

While good or somewhat makes sense for psychics, I feel anything which makes Eldar a number-race is bad. I dislike cheap Guardians and I dislike anything which encourages you to pile more and more Eldar bodies. However, a Warlock with Embolden already does synergies nicely with Farseers, although I'm not certain it allows you to re-roll the damage check as well.

Since the Warlocks are the apprentices of the Farseers, could have them act in a similar manner to the Slaan of Fantasy; that is the Farseer can use the eyes of any Warlock in order to cast her psychic powers. Gives a bit of range and doesn't mean you have to dedicate your support unit quite so much.

Mahtamori wrote:Since the Warlocks are the apprentices of the Farseers, could have them act in a similar manner to the Slaan of Fantasy; that is the Farseer can use the eyes of any Warlock in order to cast her psychic powers. Gives a bit of range and doesn't mean you have to dedicate your support unit quite so much.

Not completely true, Warlocks are eldar who gave up on the path of the seer to follow the path of the warrior. They are warriors at heart but still have great control over their psychic abilities due to their time following the path of the seer.

Mahtamori wrote: "Targeted enemy non-vehicle unit has their minds invaded by strange lights and phantom voices, the dead come back to life and long lost friend haunt them. For their next player phase the unit will count as having failed night fighting check and treat all terrain as difficult, they are effectively blind." Alterations on the same theme could work, such as "LD test or no move next turn."

You really do write your ideas brilliantly You could just change it so that the unit may not make any voluntary actions untill the start of the next eldar turn. That effectivly pin's them without giving increased cover saves and still means it can effect fearless units ect.

Teaches me to read fluff better. It's odd that they have almost the exact same stat-line as Guardians, though...

@Gorechild & Mahtamori- The current codex says the Warlocks are " Seers who once trod the Path of the Warrior, and it is their previous experience as warriors that enables them to harness their destructive impulses in battle.".

GW could change thisin the next codex, but thought you might want the exact current fluff.

I like the idea of the squad being able to stretch the farseers abilities. It really reinforces the communal thought process of a race full of psykers.


BTW, What do you guys think of my confusion idea as a replacement for enhance. It is different from Mahtamoris version.

@focusedfire: More or less Defend. The problem is that you can't make a melee ability for the Warlocks that enhance or cripples the enemy too much since the Seer council is so strong. The synergy or defense afforded the Guardians could simply make the council into a death star without an exhaust vent.
Let me pass another suggestion back. All enemy models in base contact with the Warlock's squad adds +1 to the result of their rolls to hit. Due to the nature of the WS chart, this is more powerful than the previous version, but staying on the same theme.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but a possibility for codex organization would be to insert core units in the front (behind the fluff). Behind that, you could put in sections with details on the core craftworlds, and unit modifications such as the previously mentioned wraithlords and different rulings. It would be similar to the previous CSM codex, but a little more in-depth and personal. I think it would be a nice touch. Thoughts?

@Mahtamori-I think I've come up with an idea for the proposed warlock psychic power "Confusion". It follows my earlier suggestion that the Warlocks get weaker versions of the Farseer Powers. Now think about confusion being like eldritch storm in that it can move units, but it would make the enemy infantry units wander. The rule would go like this:

Confusion- Used at the biginning of the opponents movement Phase the Warlock, after passing a pschic test, will cause any single indicated unit within 12" to become confused. To represent this, Roll d3" scatter and move the unit in the direction indicated. If a hit is rolled then the player comtrolling the Warlock chooses the direction. The affected unit will continue wander in this manner until they pass a leadership test.

This is just a rough form of the idea. The distance and how the power is applied could be changed, but the rule seemed to flow when I wrote this draft and it feels right when read.

Let me know what you think.


@crazypsyko-I think the Craftworld rules for altered FoC's could very well be included within the codex. Probably tie these lists to each craftworlds Specual Character. It has been thought of but will have to wait and see if GW will show the Eldar some love.

@focused - I like that idea a lot. One problem though: keeping track of the exact direction that the unit should be moving. If a unit fails a leadership more than once it could get very inaccurate. (it can be hard enough coming to an agreement as to how many models are under a blast when it scatters once!) another point: if it is leadership test, fearless units are unaffected, why shouldnt a big mob of boys be able to get confused?!

I really like the idea, it just needs some smoothing out

@Gorechild-I was thinking that until the leadership test was passed that d3 scatter would be rolled. Maybe make it where rolling a hit lets the unit just sit where they are? Roll a hit and it becomes Eldar players choice?

The Psychic test lets you move even a fearless unit for a turn, then they regroup.

I agree, that the rule needs tweaking in the wording, but I think that it is close. Want to hear what Mahtamori thinks also.

I think Scatter D6" not allowed to shoot or assault until next turn would be better. I cant see much that would make people want to take it as a power over eldritch storm seeing as it doesnt do any damage if the unit can still act as normal.

On a completely seperate and unrelated note, I thought of a decent way to make Shining spears interesting and fit a unique role. Extreme Agility- The riders of the Shining Spears aspect fly with such grace and agility that they can outmanouver any foe. Shining spears may move 12" in the shooting phase in lieu of firing weapons regardless of how fast they moved in the movement phase. They may then assault 12" in the assault phase. Such is the speed of the shining spear aspect that they are able to hit the rear armour of any vehicle in an assault (even walkers!) Then keep a their wargear and stats and points the same. Unit fixed?

So a few of my local buddies that read Dakka have been taking a look at this thread and asked me to throw up some of the ideas that we have been play testing regarding Eldar. I will do this in a another post a little while later so as not to derail what you all are talking about.


I will make one comment on what I see here. Mainly I see thinkgs are that either extremely overpowered/underpointed or give advantages without staying true to Eldar background and design concepts.

Creating your own codex is fine for a group of friends but to see some wide spread use it needs to be well balanced in game terms and stick with what is known about how the Eldar work.

A good example is the Eldar Exodite codex that was around about 4 years ago when the current Eldar codex was released. It was well balanced, stayed true to Eldar ideas and had both strengths and weaknesses. The real goal in a codex is to make all units desirable for someone to play with.

Anyway, i will put up some of our rules that we have tested and some that we haven't.

Orion_44 wrote: I will make one comment on what I see here. Mainly I see thinkgs are that either extremely overpowered/underpointed or give advantages without staying true to Eldar background and design concepts.

Please be specific. In what ways fo you feel that the ideas are not staying true to the Background and which are under costed? I only remember breifly discussing points for guardians and rhen it was to increase their cost. Most in this thread are resistant to the idea of cheap Eldar so this comment about poinsts is confusing'

I ask for these specifics because your opening sentence is in essence an attack on the thread and those participating, while not giving substantiative grounds for the negative comments. This could be viewed as trolling and would like for clarification before getting into any suggestions that you might have.

Orion_44 wrote:
Creating your own codex is fine for a group of friends but to see some wide spread use it needs to be well balanced in game terms and stick with what is known about how the Eldar work.

Please to reread the Title and original post. This is a thread about Ideas. I am not in the process of writing an Eldar Fan-Dex but rather am looking to do a unit by unit analysis as to where the problems that are limiting viable builds lay.

Orion_44 wrote:
A good example is the Eldar Exodite codex that was around about 4 years ago when the current Eldar codex was released. It was well balanced, stayed true to Eldar ideas and had both strengths and weaknesses. The real goal in a codex is to make all units desirable for someone to play with.

I agree with this and the goal of this thread is to identify the problems within the current codex and to offer ideas on how to improve each unit "As They Come Up For Discussion/Debate".
Once the problems have been identified and possible solutions have been discusse for each of the Elar units the, and only then, we will begin to examine how each of the suggested improvements will interact with other units and their proposed improvements.

Hopefully this thread will serve as a helpful guide on the thinking process for Codex/Fan-dex creation and will generate ideas that others will use or even better inspire them to generate their own ideas while maintaining the ethos of the army.

Again, I'd like to remindyou that while compiling ideas, I am not in the process of writing another Fan-dex. My Tau Fan-dex is enough for me.

Orion_44 wrote:
Anyway, i will put up some of our rules that we have tested and some that we haven't.

Only introduce ideas when the unit is being or has been discussed. Ideas for units not being discussed will only cause confusion and lead to rampant wish-listing that runs counter to the methodical assessment that is the goal of this thread.

Look forward to your reply, Later

focusedfire wrote:

Orion_44 wrote: I will make one comment on what I see here. Mainly I see thinkgs are that either extremely overpowered/underpointed or give advantages without staying true to Eldar background and design concepts.

Please be specific. In what ways fo you feel that the ideas are not staying true to the Background and which are under costed? I only remember breifly discussing points for guardians and rhen it was to increase their cost. Most in this thread are resistant to the idea of cheap Eldar so this comment about poinsts is confusing

Alright, here are some general impressions, I realized after reading your response that what I wrote appeared far more snarky than I intended. Your aspected wraithlords seemed to have some extremely excessive abilities, I see that you didn't point them but others did. For instance giving hit and run to a wraithlord and giving jump infantry rules aka the spider Lord is pretty crazy, I get to you super fast, you can't tar pit me because I can leave combat, etc. Also, the scorpion lord, Reaper Lord, and Wraithlord are pretty crazy due to abilities and taking artillery, moving a firing a D Cannon would be great, but at how much cost? And acting as a spirit seer to wraithlords within 6" means you would see wraithlord formations dominating the game, they have to be killed at all costs, they are still not going to be easy and will clear the way for the rest of the army to get to you and can do it at extremely fast speeds.

This doesn't seem to fit with the idea that these are the dead, forced back to life in a dream state, and somewhat abborhent for the Eldar to use. Guardians also suffer from not staying true to what they are. Yes they are bakers, artisans etc. But when an Eldar is dedicated to one path they are so focused and obssessed that they cannot pay attention or focus on anything else and stay in control as the dictates of the path demand. Yes some will have thier blood lust raised to the point that they join an aspect and persue the art of war. But that is not where they are in thier path when they hit the field as guardians.

focusedfire wrote:I ask for these specifics because your opening sentence is in essence an attack on the thread and those participating, while not giving substantiative grounds for the negative comments. This could be viewed as trolling and would like for clarification before getting into any suggestions that you might have.

Orion_44 wrote:
Creating your own codex is fine for a group of friends but to see some wide spread use it needs to be well balanced in game terms and stick with what is known about how the Eldar work.

Please to reread the Title and original post. This is a thread about Ideas. I am not in the process of writing an Eldar Fan-Dex but rather am looking to do a unit by unit analysis as to where the problems that are limiting viable builds lay.

Yeah, I read what you posted but i really see the entire thread headed towards making the fixes now. I would like to see a thread with just what doesn't work in the Eldar Codex right now to get a feel for complaints. There are units I don't really take to tournaments due to having better choices for points but I play in my local group with every unit except shining spears (just never owned the models in 17k points of Eldar) and like most of them. This wasn't meant to be an attack on only you, its just the trending I saw. Again I apologize for being too harsh in my initial post.

focusedfire wrote:

Orion_44 wrote:
A good example is the Eldar Exodite codex that was around about 4 years ago when the current Eldar codex was released. It was well balanced, stayed true to Eldar ideas and had both strengths and weaknesses. The real goal in a codex is to make all units desirable for someone to play with.

I agree with this and the goal of this thread is to identify the problems within the current codex and to offer ideas on how to improve each unit "As They Come Up For Discussion/Debate".
Once the problems have been identified and possible solutions have been discusse for each of the Elar units the, and only then, we will begin to examine how each of the suggested improvements will interact with other units and their proposed improvements.

Hopefully this thread will serve as a helpful guide on the thinking process for Codex/Fan-dex creation and will generate ideas that others will use or even better inspire them to generate their own ideas while maintaining the ethos of the army.

Again, I'd like to remindyou that while compiling ideas, I am not in the process of writing another Fan-dex. My Tau Fan-dex is enough for me.

Orion_44 wrote:
Anyway, i will put up some of our rules that we have tested and some that we haven't.

Only introduce ideas when the unit is being or has been discussed. Ideas for units not being discussed will only cause confusion and lead to rampant wish-listing that runs counter to the methodical assessment that is the goal of this thread.

Look forward to your reply, Later

I have put up what I have, and everything there has been playtested on the field. I didn't add any new units yet or adjust psychic powers to return the eldar to the most powerful psykers in the 40k Universe but may do so in the future. I admire anyone who is trying to be creative and address problems. I was still more angry about not being able to go to 'Ard boyz semi's when i initially posted than actually writing something constructive. Sorry about that.

Orion_44 wrote:
Alright, here are some general impressions, I realized after reading your response that what I wrote appeared far more snarky than I intended. Your aspected wraithlords seemed to have some extremely excessive abilities, I see that you didn't point them but others did. For instance giving hit and run to a wraithlord and giving jump infantry rules aka the spider Lord is pretty crazy, I get to you super fast, you can't tar pit me because I can leave combat, etc. Also, the scorpion lord, Reaper Lord, and Wraithlord are pretty crazy due to abilities and taking artillery, moving a firing a D Cannon would be great, but at how much cost? And acting as a spirit seer to wraithlords within 6" means you would see wraithlord formations dominating the game, they have to be killed at all costs, they are still not going to be easy and will clear the way for the rest of the army to get to you and can do it at extremely fast speeds.

This doesn't seem to fit with the idea that these are the dead, forced back to life in a dream state, and somewhat abborhent for the Eldar to use. Guardians also suffer from not staying true to what they are. Yes they are bakers, artisans etc. But when an Eldar is dedicated to one path they are so focused and obssessed that they cannot pay attention or focus on anything else and stay in control as the dictates of the path demand. Yes some will have thier blood lust raised to the point that they join an aspect and persue the art of war. But that is not where they are in thier path when they hit the field as guardians.

1) The Aspectlords were just a neat idea that looks cool. The thought for them was a form of progressing the Eldar as a dying race, an evolution of where they are headed. I posted the ideas as in an attempt to get the Eldar players talkimg again. The Eldar presence on this forum has grown very quiet as of late and I was hoping to draw some of them into the thread for ideas and discussion.
And yes, Some of the lords are OTT but I was trying to start a conversation. Honestly, I they would maybe make great Apoc units but would have to be priced on the high end to restroct use in normal games.

2) Wraithlords carrying the D-cannon, Vibro-cannon, and the Shadow Weaver would of course have to be some what expensive, at least as much as a current Bright Lance equipped model.


3) The background that I have read on the Guardins differs from your viewpont. There is also the Eldar natural abilities to consider, the same grace, speed, and precision that defines the Eldar as a race would translate to better than human base stats in the areas of Weapon Skill, Balistic Skill, and initiative. Yes, the Guardians are artists, Miyamoto Musashi "The Writer of the Principle of the 5 Rings"(Known as the book of the 5 Rings) speaks on this saying something to the effect that the disciple from all art forms should be studied by the warrior because all will lead to becoming better in the other areas. Basically that disdiple from one field carries over in to all others, the hard part is developing the discipline to begin with.

Orion_44 wrote:Yeah, I read what you posted but i really see the entire thread headed towards making the fixes now. I would like to see a thread with just what doesn't work in the Eldar Codex right now to get a feel for complaints. There are units I don't really take to tournaments due to having better choices for points but I play in my local group with every unit except shining spears (just never owned the models in 17k points of Eldar) and like most of them. This wasn't meant to be an attack on only you, its just the trending I saw. Again I apologize for being too harsh in my initial post.

1)About the initial tone, forget about it.

2)Some of the fixes are going to be effectively brand new units. Part of the problem with the Eldar is that the Army has to many units that over lap and overfill the FoC. Introducing, new units is difficult to impossible for just one codex. This has been the source of a long standing complaint against GW. They make 7 different overpowered armies out of a very limited model line up but continue to force the Eldar into one codex that necessitates the under statting and over costing of some units due to a very broad model line. If it is going to be one book then some units should become craft world specific and only able to be taken with certain HQ's. SM's should be confined in the same manner.
So yeah, While I think that my collection only tops out at 12-14K range I definitely know where you are coming from.

3)About the list of problems, ask and ye shall receive. At the end of this post I will leave you a list of concerns that have been brought up in other threads.

Orion_44 wrote:
Anyway, i will put up some of our rules that we have tested and some that we haven't.

I have put up what I have, and everything there has been playtested on the field. I didn't add any new units yet or adjust psychic powers to return the eldar to the most powerful psykers in the 40k Universe but may do so in the future. I admire anyone who is trying to be creative and address problems. I was still more angry about not being able to go to 'Ard boyz semi's when i initially posted than actually writing something constructive. Sorry about that.

Its cool. I wasn't trying to get in your face, just to find out your intentions. I've gone over your list in the other threads and will post a few comments soon. It is my hope that you join the conversation in this thread, additional input for each unit as it comes up would be great.

Thank you for the kind words and sorry to hear about 'Ard Boyz. What Happened?



Here is the list of concerns that have been brought up in other threads:(Note- Parenthesis indicate possible correction/fix's and other notes/suggestions I've seen or heard).



1)Too many units that overlap but only a limited number of which are properly pointed

2)Limited build types due to current 5th ed Rule Book.

3)Limited synergies between the fluffy overspecialized units.

4)Lack of ability to assault out of moving transport

5)GW having effectively shrunk of the board by making everyone faster while at the same time slowing the Eldar down. This has had the Side effect of pushing the game in a diretion to where foot-lists are near non-existent. Speed is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of the Eldar.

6)11 HQ choices, of which less than half are used. Reasons given:
a)Eldrad Autarch combo too good to not use
b)Dual seers are to good to not use
c)Avatar seems OK and would be fine if foot slogger lists become more viable.
d)Phoenix Lords are over-pointed(Many would accept price if the lords could take a retinue of their aspect and that unit became scoring and gained the special abilities automatically)

7)Guardians Stats do not reflect natural racial abilities and their armour is counter intuitive to the Fluff.(Many problems would be fixed by simple WS & BS stat bumps across the Eldar model range and guardians receiving same armour as majority of army "4+ save". Also should get grenades appropriate for unit purpose.

8)Aspect Warrior Elites: Average stats do not portray them being on the path, fielded without Exarch, and not having Aspect abilities or grenades. Additional complaints for each aspect:
a)Banshees-Lack of Assault Transports, low strength(Furious assault), and unit entry needs to more clearly specify that swords are power weapons.
b)Fire Dragons-good but need adjusting because they are currently a no-brainer unit. The do suffer from a lack of options.
c)Striking Scorpions- Lack of fleet, assault grenades, and under powered weapons(Maybe give rending)


9)Non-Aspect Elites: Should fit better in non-aspect armies and should have 1 or 2 more non-aspect units while Wraithguard should be troops
a)Harlequins-Lack of assault transport(Should be geared as elites for craftworlds that don't have aspect warriors)
b)WraithGuard-Pricing, Wound Stats and Wraithsight all need reviewing with an eye towards changing and possible FoC change
c)???Maybe bring rangers here?Somthing Else


10)Troops- Eldar are stting good here but changes in other areas will force changes here. Guardians will be only unit needing major redo
a)Dire Avengers- Good as they are except for lack of grenades and need minor improvement to make room for effective guardians.
b)Rangers- good as they are but might be better fit in elites
c)Guardians-Until Dire Avengers are improved they will not be used, Units don't fit fluff in sizes available, Need appropriate grenades
d)Jetbike Guardians- Good as they are. Will need 1 point increase if WS and BS are increased

11) Fast Attack- Needs work because the FA in a fast army uses only one unit usually. Maybe catch spill over units from overloaded Heavy Support section?
a)Shining Spears- Need redefining, Unit Size is a little low, Points are slightly high and Weapons should be improved.(Maybe give them AP 2 plasma lances making them TEQ Hunters?)
b)Swooping Hawks-Are a good unit that just doesn't synergize with the army when they should. Jack of all trades unit that May simply be over priced.???
c)Warp Spiders-Difficulty in DS-ing in current meta-game and Weapon profile needs to something???
d)Vypers- Pretty good. Most are happy with vehicle. Vehicle upgrades are another matter and considered to expensive
e)????(War Walkers moved here???

12)Heavy Support- This section is overloaded with units that should be elsewhere, reworked, or retconned.
a)Support Weapon Batteries-Great weapons, Units are too fragile, immobile, and expensive. Give weapons to Wraithlords and IMO retcon the unit. If not then better saves and mobility.
b)Dark Reapers- Good but immobile in an army that relies upon mobility(Slow and Purposeful?)
c)Wraithlords-Are OK but do slightly under perform in damage output, both in HtH and Shooting.
d)WarWalkers- Not int the right FoC slot but too good for FA.(Any increase to guardian BS would necessitate twin-linking to reduce number of shots. This could bring them in line for the FA)
e)Falcons-Nerfed by defensive weapon change, Not as point efficient as Wave Serpents, Vehicle upgrade costs.
f)Fire Prism- Good as is Possibly to good/under-costed. No complaints other than upgrase costs.

These are the complaints so far. I may not agree with all of them but these are what I've seen as complaints. You will note re-occuring complaints, those I feel are valid.
Tell me what you think

I have a rather extreme idea for the Shuriken Catapult:
Range: 20" S2 AP3 Assault 2

I did some mathhammer, and the end results are the same versus space marines. Two expected casualties. The real difference is distance. Guardians won't have to get close to assault range to pick off a few people here and there anymore. They may actually be somewhat useful.

I do have an alternate proposal, which is to give it +1S and Rapid Fire. Guardians don't seem like the assaulting type to me, but maybe that's just because I've chewed them up and spat them out too many times with bloodletters.

@crazypsyko666 - I prefer the idea of rapid fire guardians as opposed to S2 AP3. The availability of cover saves in 5th Ed would leave a unit of S2 shot's doing very little.

As the wraithlords have been brought up again, I have to say I dont like the look of them. They could do with improvements (maybe +1A for having a wraithsword or cheaper heavy weapons). But I cant imagine the eldar embracing their equivilent of grave robbing.

@Gorechild-The Eldar already have embraced the act of grave robbing. Now, seeing as the Wraithlords are a newer plastic model that has undersold since they changed it in the last codex. I can see their rules getting better.

I think that if they returned the Wraithlords third HtH attack and gave them access to D-cannnons and the other heavy support weapons that they would be good. Let them take two Wraithsword and get as the excuse for giving the third HtH attack maybe. Maybe make doing such give them their fourth attack?
I, also, don't know how I feel about the Twin-linking of the guns/flamers thet I hear everyone asking for...???

Iyanden only did it as a last resort to stop the rest of the craftworld being utterly destroyed, I cant see craftworlds like biel tan just starting unsing them en masse without dire need. Admittedly they should be stronger offensively (and maybe a 5++ save) but I dont see aspect lords apearing. The spirit stones of exarch's are all held within their armour, i dont see why they would all of a sudden put them in wraithlords after thousands of years.

Another thought, although the idea of D-cannons ect being used by wraithlords is okay, I dont see why anybody would ever use the normal gun platforms if that was possible. they could instead have a new bigger version of the guns used by wraithguard as not to completely devaluating the weapon platforms.

I'd say no to twin linking the weapons and just let them fire twice. I'd suggest the wraithsword would be better to give bonus attacks rather than just boosting their base number of attacks, otherwise a wraithlord with heavy weapons would be amazing both at range and in assault, given that they are S10 MC's

@Gorechild-The aspect lords were just a neat theme idea. A sort of what if they advanced the story line type of thing. I could see them as Iyanden only units if GW ever did seperate craftworld codices or maybe they could be Apoc units.

As to why this would happen. This was covered earlier in that if an exarchs armour is destroyed it would take a lot of time to fashoin a new suit. You could claim that the jewels are just moved/given to the next in line but doing such would cheapen the meaning of what it is to be an Exarch.

About the Support weapon batteries. No one really uses them now, not even in fluffy non-competitive games. This is because they cost to much for too fragile of a unit and because Dark Reapers, Warwalkers, Wraithlords, and Vehicles are so much better. IMO, they should be retconned because they do not fit the Eldar theme.
If not retconned, then they need a boost in Protection, durability and mobility. Then they should get true long ranged weapons like a prism cannon and the new night spinner cannon.

Leave the old weapons (D-Cannon, Vibro Cannon, and Shadow Weaver) to the Wraith lords. The BL's and ML's on the wraithlords just don't fit the Wraithlords conceptually. Plus there are 5-6 other units that mount the EML, BL, Ect... type of weapons. Giving the Lord the D-cannond and such would makre them as distinctive in fire power as they are in their stats.

I agree about the Wraithsword, but should it be base A 3 or "Base A 2 before the swords?"

Unless we're nerfing the farseer's runes of witnessing/warding and some of the units, I don't think the Eldar need any updates.

@HivefleetGoliath- Your opinion is duly noted. Now do you have something constructive to post?

I've been doing some mathhammer, and the catapult seems most useful as a 20" AP3 S3 Assault 2 weapon. It's just as balanced as the last.

The difference is that it changes to be some sort of odd-ball low-S low-AP weapon instead of the current anti-horde-ish weapon.

Regardless, I don't think we'll ever get the Guardians to perform on their own without having them overlap with Dire Avengers, and put simply we can't have two separate troop choices overlapping. Actually, Dire Avengers are simply a squad of Guardian veterans, and we want to get away from that somewhat.

I propose this:
Guardians are taken in groups of 5.
Each squad may have up to 4 groups.
Each group has one heavy weapons platform each (these are still markers, up to one Guardian per weapon in squad may use the heavy weapon platform instead of the shuricat).
One heavy weapon platform per squad may be upgraded to a support platform.
Support platforms are treated as terrain (provides cover) and prevent the squad from purchasing a transportation.
Support platforms may move and fire!

In other words, they'd be an equivalent of a heavy weapon squad. You'd still have 4 Guardians per platform standing around looking pretty while the fifth fires the gun, but a cynic would claim they are wounds for soaking damage. They'll still need to have armour which befits a race capable of mass producing high-tech gear for their dying breed. It's not like the Eldar really has to worry about the cost of ammo when the Eldar lives are both more precious and more likely to run out before the ammo (contrary to the humans where the opposite is true)

Edit: What I mean to say, crazypsyko, is that while the math may work out, it won't make sense or fit in. For some reason Eldar are more about high strength, poor AP, short range, high VOF.

@Mahatamori: The high-strength low AP thing has never made much sense to me. Shurikens, from a fluffy standpoint, are quite sharp, but brittle, fragile. It would make sense that it would have a high AP and low S, even if it doesn't fit with how the army functions now. I agree, however, that it does take away greatly from the anti-horde function of it. Perhaps if we were to make the Dire Avengers closer range and let the Guardians be the newbies kept in the back.

Anyways, I like the idea of a 'platoon' style troop choice, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for a dying race.

@Mahtomori-I agree with crazypsyko on the 20 man unit not fitting with the Eldar theme. It, also, might be a little OP at the 20 man level. Now two groups of 5 for a total of 10 is reasonable and I like.

I don't think that I got your input on the last idea for the warlock confusion power on the previous page. I want your views on it and how you'd word it.


@Crazypsyko- Some of your Ideas I'm enjoying because they are different and provoke additional thought. Your weapon ranges though are probably not viable in the current multiple of three movement structure of the 40K gaming system.

@Focusedfire: What do you recommend then?

@Crazy Psyko-I think I'd put the guardians like this:

Defenders: (9 points each)

WS 4 BS 4 S 3 T 3 W 1 I 4 A 1 Sv 4+ Ld 8

Equipment:
Laser Rifle (Range 24" S 3 AP 5 Rapid Fire)
Defensive grenades

Unit:
4 Defender Guardians + 1 Dire Avenger Squad leader
Two Guardians may purchase a weapons platform

Unit options:
May Take an additional 5 Defender Guardians
Two of the additional Guardians may purchase a weapons platform.
Unit may be joined by a warlock for X points

Special rules:
Fleet


Storm: (10 points each )

WS 4 BS 4 S 3 T 3 W 1 I 4 A 1 Sv 4+ Ld 8

Equipment:
Shuriken Pistols
Close Combat Weapon
Assault grenades

Unit:
4 Guardians + 1 Dire Avenger Squad leader
One of the Storm Guardians may purchase a special weapon

Unit options:
May Take an additional 5 Defender Guardians
One of the additional Guardians may purchase a special weapon.
Unit may be joined by a warlock for X points

Special Rules:
Fleet

Just an initial idea

@ Focused- a good basis to start from. I dont see why the defenders weapon randomly has to change from a shuriken catapult though. I reckon S4 AP5 24" rapid fire would be good. I dont like the DA as a sergent idea, guardians get locks to do that. Also might suggest WS4 BS3 for storm guardians and WS3 BS4 for defenders.
Squad sizes of 5-10 sound good, I'd suggest one special weapon/heavy weapon platform for every 5 models. Keeps it simple but they each have their own little niche and are still very individual compaired to DA's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooh and I woudnt suggest 4+ armour. 4+ armour would be the main incentive to opt for DA's

@Gorechild- It is easier to reply if I list my thoughts on this and to your questions.

1) As far as the weapons go a Shuriken Rifle that was S 4 AP 5 Rapid fire would be ok. I was just distancing the unit from the Dire Avengers

2) I am looking at the Guardians as those just beginning on the path or those returning to the path of the warrior. I, originally had a Banshee leading the storms and a Dark Reaper leading the Defenders. This would represent whether they were starting to train as a ranged combat or close combat Aspect. I changed it at the last second to Dire Avengers because they can do both jobs fairly well.

3) I originally had varied their WS & BS with Storms getting WS 4 BS 3 and Defenders getting WS 3 BS 4 but it didn't make sense to me as they are relatively just starting their paths. I also want Aspects to reflect their Specialty in their Stats(Banshees/Scorps at WS 5 BS 4 and Reapers/Avengers at WS 4 BS 5) and starting the stats at 3 would have left the banshees/scorps to where they couldn't shoot and reapers/avengers to where they couldn't fight in HtH. Varying the base stats would also bone the rest of the more general aspects like the Spiders, Hawks, and Spears.

4) As to Armour save 4+. It is mandatory on a unit that starts at 5 models strong. Their is a reason why every non-stealthy non-scouting unit with a save of 5+ in this game starts at 10 models and goes up. They have to be 4+ or lower or they inst die. This is a mandatory change if you make the Guardians reflect the Eldar fluff of dying off.

5)Back to the Aspect squad leaders. The reasons for these guys are:
a)That I did not want the Warlocks to become mandatory.
b)The Guardian units have too low of a buy in cost when starting at 5 models unless you add a squad leader. 32 Point Squads would encourage 5 model strong throw away squads that just ride around in a wave transport all game because they get an extra "cheap" Wave Serpent. ..........The object here is to fix these units rather than break them. My Stat and point increases help, but even then the unit needs a small points hike because they should still cost 55 or more points to initially purchase.
c) As I stated before, I see the Guardians as the starting point for where many Eldar begin their journey down one of the Aspect paths and I feel that their should be an aspect warrior their to guide them.

Hope this helps to illustrate ny thought process on these units.

BTW, do you think you'd like the units better with a banshee and Reapers as the Squad leaders?

1) Being able to stay out of assault range whilst firing two shots is what sets Avengers appart, Being why Avenger Catapults are 18" range. Shuricats being 24" rapid fire would encourage guardians to sit back and shoot (further encouraged by heavy weapon platforms).

2) Warlocks wouldnt be mandatory, just a obvious option for units not in transports. I think aspect warriors should stay seperate.

3) Eldar complete several paths in their lifetime, so its not completely unreasonable to assume them to have some skill in different fields. Surely it is likely that when calling civilians to fight they would find people that are decent shots to act as defenders and that those with combat eperience would be drafted as storm guardians.

4) This again is why I was suggesting improving conceal to give a 4+. It woud make them more durable, not improve their stats beyond that of DA's and not make seer councils any better as the have 4+ inv already.

5)
a) As we were considering making warlocks more potent I was assuming a point increase would make people less likely to want them as a mandatory upgrade. But anyway, I see no problem with every unit being led by one. It gives every eldar unit a psychic aspect, which I think is good seeing as they are ment to be the most psychicly powerfull race
b) to fix this problem, dont aow them to purchase a WS transport unless the squad numbers 10+ models
c) Some Eldar start life on either the path of the seer or warrior, the majority start on any number ot the hundreds of other paths, they can then change to any of the paths of the warrior and then change back (the few that dont change back become exarch's). Just because they are civilians at the time they are drafted to become guardians doesnt mean they have no combat ability.

I honestly don't feel improving one Warlock power to the point where taking a Warlock with that particular power is absolutely necessary for the unit to function. It would be akin to letting Space Marines have a few neat quality-of-life upgrades and then the option to take power armour instead of a T-shirt and shorts. No one would take the upgrade which let the Space Marines move and rapid fire if it was an option between 6+ and 3+ armour save.

I think the Warlock powers should be entirely supportive of the role the Warlock or the Guardians are in, and fully optional. Destructor is a very good example - it's a heavy flamer and really potent, but you don't have to take a Warlock with Destructor to make Guardian Jetbikes work, they just benefit a lot from it.
(Speaking of Warlocks, aren't they supposed to be Psyker Warriors? Where's the improved statline? Not that they don't work well atm, though, due to a large part in their awesome equipment)

Another idea I've been toying with is holo projectors - same armour that Harlequins have. Naturally, this would necessitate Conceal to be changed to something like providing Stealth USR, but it drastically increases the Guardian's survivability against shooting simply because instead of having 90% of all weapons denying them their armour saves in shooting, nearly none do now - even if the armour save itself is weak.

As for the Guardians, they aren't really beginning on the path of the Warrior, they are used out of necessity as the Aspect Warriors find themselves too few to be used exclusively in conflicts. Reading codex pages 9 through 10, the distinct impression is given that "Guardians are drafted" (thus suffering a basic profile) "only in time of need" (begging the question why they are core troops) as well as the Eldar Warhost is a precision tool with experts at destruction (again refuting the Guardians as core philosophy) with the Aspect Warriors being the standing army and we are lead to believe that the Aspect Warriors are also the primary components of a Warhost, but in much less words.
Additionally, we are taught that the Aspect Warriors travel the path of Kaela Mensha Kaine, the God of War, while the Guardians are drafted in no small part from the Eldar on the path of Vaul, the master smith. Let's add the following quote:

Eldar 4th edition codex, page 9 wrote:The Eldar ideal is to slaughter those who oppose them without a single loss from their own ranks; the usurpers are many and the Eldar are few. They cannot afford to throw away their lives in the manner of the soldiers of the crude races.

So, why are the Guardians not embrased in the support role. They are crammed into all vehicles as befit a dying race - protect them with several inches of Wraithbone and leave the foot slogging to the trained warriors - but what about the troop choice? Why do we even have Eldar in some sort of meat-shield formation?

Support Weapon Battery is in the correct area, I feel, but... and here comes the big controversial part and the TL;DR

Why aren't the Aspect Warriors troops? All of the ones in Elits moved to Troop... There's a lot of illogical structure here.

@Gorechild-We disagree quite a bit here. I am looking at this from a point of how do you make more units viable without going down the old Mechdar path. Here. I'll respond to your concerns with mine and Ideas that might solve the concerns we both have.

BTW, because I am bringing up the aspects here they will now be open for discussion.

1) I disagree with you here. IMO, What seperates the Dire Avengers is their ability to lay down a truely withering fusillade of S 4 shots while still being able to assault. I don't think that there is unit that can match their objective clearing ability without the aid of templates or blast weapons. If they weren't so overly specialized or at least had Haywire grenades, they might be the best basic troop unit in the game.

2)My problem here is that without the Aspect Warriors then the Warlocks would have to be mandatory. The five 8 models units come out to 40 points each if we stick with the 8 point models as you propose. This will either lead to 5 model suicide squads(very non-Eldar) or this would drive the army even further down the mechanized path. One of the end objectives of this thread is to find ways to make builds other than mechdar viable and possibly competitive. It would also be good to see something that showed the process of how so many Eldar end up on one of the aspect paths.

3)I think that the Guardians should establish the Eldar baseline with the weapons defining their battlefield roles and that the Aspect Warrior's "flat all have the same statline"(one of my pet peeves) be changed to reflect their years of both being upon that path and the battles survived. This would translate to the following stats for the specialist Aspects:

Shooting Aspects such as Avengers, Dragons, Reapers would have these base stats WS4 BS5 S3 T3 W1 I5 A2 Ld 9 with unit specific saves that range from 4+ down to 2+
Assault Aspects such as Banshees and Scorpions would have these base stats WS5 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A2 Ld 9 with unit specific saves that vary from 4+ down to 3+

This would leave the Shining Spears, Swoopin Hawks and the Warp Spiders to be sorted out. Notice that they are all Fast attacks that just don't get used much? You'd figure a fast armies strong point would be their FA choices. Something needs to be done with these units, both in stats and more importantly weapons/purpose. The first thing is to figure what would be their specialty. Maybe something like:

Hawks as an ambush Shooting aspect with WS 4 and BS 5 and a reworking of the unit for a better defined/effective role.(Maybe improve grenade pack and focus on Anti-horde)
Spiders as an ambush Assault aspect with WS 5 and BS 4 and a reworking of the unit for a better defined & effective role.(Weapons become blast? and able to assault after deepstrike?)

Spears as an assualt aspect with WS 5 and BS 4 and a reworking of their weapons.(Make them terminator hunters? Change to Plasma lances, same short range and strength but AP 2)


4)This response of yours is an exaggeration. Their stats would not be better than the DA's. They would be close to the current DA's but with weapons that limit them to being less than the current BA's and very different from where DA's should be. The cover save would do nothing to help their survivability because 4+ is everywhere already. The same thing that makes them non-viable would still make do so. They would also continue to be counter-intuitive for a race that is dying off.


5)
a)Here, the problem is that without the Warlocks the units will be too cheap and with the warlocks they may become to powerful for the cost by making the units better than the Dire Avengers. There needs to be about a 55-60 point base cost buy-in for the unit before purchasing a warlock. Even then this would be something that would need playtesting with the proposed warlock abilities that we seem to agree upon in order to see what needs adapting.
b) It would be arbitrary to mandate fully loaded units before getting the WS. It would be a rule that people would howl about because of stories that mentions empty sections on the Craftworlds and some about vehicles and equipment that sit unused due to not enough manpower. I believe that we can do better, that we can come up with ideas that fit the fluff without being overpowered.
c)My understanding was that the Eldar start their lives and after they reach a certain age they choose to follow the path that calls them. There is a difference between this and being born to a path as you describe. Now I agree that they would have combat ability and it is because of this ability that they should have the improved flat stats. None of this silly 3rd-4th ed Storm Guardians that were supposed to be veterans that once followed one of the warrior paths but are still WS3 and BS3.


I understand where you are coming from in that you are hesitant to change things too much. Please understand that I feel that the Eldar have been hit with the consecutive weaker codices and a ruleset that have led to the now limited codex that has only one basic build type for anything above casual play. The trick with the Eldar is improving the sub-par units without over-powering the others so that nonmech lists become viable again. To me the best way to do this is improve and then adjust points and Synergistic abilities to balance.

Do you have any ideas on how to find a middlepoint that still makes the units viable?
I mean a 5 model unit + warlock that comes to 90+points could be viable with the 4+ save and the proposed warlock abilities. They would still be fragile but you'd have to find a way to justify the points increases. This is why I'm pushing forthe Save and abilities. A 5 model troop unit at save 5+ without ranger abilities or other special abilities is a dead unit that wasted points.

BTW, am enjoying this debate/discussion. It is interesting to see the differing pov's on this army.

focusedfire wrote:@HivefleetGoliath- Your opinion is duly noted. Now do you have something constructive to post?

Constructive? If by constructive, you mean 'giving the eldar a level of faggotry not seen since matt ward's ultrasmurfs codex', then yes, I can provide some opinions if needed. For example, they aren't nearly elfy enough. Oh, and we can make all their initiatives 6 or higher! And give them all 2 wounds and a 3+ armor save! Oh, and to make them even BETTER we can make them all admire craftworld Iyanden! "Oooh, We all wish we could be just like them!"

Enough of an improvement for you, Matt?

-Sorry didn't realize I landed in an Elfdar circle jerk thread.

Off Topic:

@Hivefeetgoliath-

Matt?

Dude who you talking to? You might want to put down what you are smoking and back yourself up.

I don't know you and you definitely don't know me. I say lets leave it that way, if you have any other comments I reffer you to visit the followong thread for my replies.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294314.page
Make sure to read it thouroughly.


BTW, figured I'd point this out before you go away, Your already in violation of Dakka's conduct policy and the course you are on is only going to alienate yourself further. Seriously, if you don't believe me then keep posting on Dakka in this manner and one of the Mods will talk to you about unprovoked hostility your slinging around.

Now please, take your amatuerish attempts at provocation to those children of the same age group as yourself. Maybe they will fall for such nonsense.

You may go, now.




Go on, get outtahere.
(Waistlevel)------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bet your still reading this aren't you,..............(o) .....gotcha sucka.

Very cool hypothesis, will do more research on the matter...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the very first thing I will mention is that I have always felt wraithlords to have a far too high base toughness. Though they are armored constructs, and have no real squishy bitz, I just never understood why they should be less squooshy than a carni...

max 7 toughness is my first throw-in...more opinions to come!

focusedfire wrote:Off Topic:

Matt?

@Hivefeetgoliath-Dude who you talking to? You might want to put down what you are smoking and back yourself up.

I don't know you and you definitely don't know me. I say lets leave it that way, if you have any other comments I reffer you to visit the followong thread for my replies.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294314.page
Make sure to read it thouroughly.


BTW, figured I'd point this out before you go away, Your already in violation of Dakka's conduct policy and the course you are on is only going to alienate yourself further. Seriously, if you don't believe me then keep posting on Dakka in this manner and one of the Mods will talk to you about unprovoked hostility your slinging around.

Now please, take your amatuerish attempts at provocation to those children of the same age group as yourself. Maybe they will fall for such nonsense.

You may go, now.




Go on, get outtahere.
(Waistlevel)------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bet your still reading this aren't you,..............(o) .....gotcha sucka.

Obviously with your immature post you deserve to be here. At least I have the intelligence to spell correctly and have some common sense.

@Gameandwatch-

The Toughness 8 has bothered me also. Not because it is OP but because it is not as powerful as it used to be.

Stick with me for a bit.

When Wraithlords were introduced the average game was around 1000-1500 points and had a lot of infantry. The lower points levels and lower number of tanks/S8 weapons meant that the Wraithlord would soak a lot of fire.
Currently the avg games are running from 1500 to 2000+ and the average point per infantry has dropped. Add the increasing number of tanks and high powered weapons and you have a model that is no longer as durable as it used to be.

IMO, the reason that T 8 is a problem is that GW will never give the wraithlord shields or anything else as long as they are T 8. A drop in toughness might convince GW game designers to make the wraithlord truly fearsome again.

What do you think?

focusedfire wrote:@Gameandwatch-

The Toughness 8 has bothered me also. Not because it is OP but because it is not as powerful as it used to be.

Stick with me for a bit.

When Wraithlords were introduced the average game was around 1000-1500 points and had a lot of infantry. The lower points levels and lower number of tanks/S8 weapons meant that the Wraithlord would soak a lot of fire.
Currently the avg games are running from 1500 to 2000+ and the average point per infantry has dropped. Add the increasing number of tanks and high powered weapons and you have a model that is no longer as durable as it used to be.

IMO, the reason that T 8 is a problem is that GW will never give the wraithlord shields or anything else as long as they are T 8. A drop in toughness might convince GW game designers to make the wraithlord truly fearsome again.

What do you think?

I couldn't agree more.

In my little circle of friends, we like to run mainly infantry armies, and my friend's wraithlord dominates, due to the lack of tanks and the like. When we choose to play with more armour, he goes down fairly quickly.

For a while we had a little rules mishap, and his Farseer would join its squad. It was not until later that we realized this was illegal, but the rest of us forgot to call him on it. That combination was only beaten once in six months, and I don't know how many games.

An invulnerable save or similar would greatly bolster the Wraithlord's effectiveness, but I'd like his toughness to go down a notch before that happens.

A

@Nightwatch-What do you think would be the right figures for Toughness, invulnerables, and pointing of the model?




@HiveFleeGoliath-

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:Obviously with your immature post you deserve to be here. At least I have the intelligence to spell correctly and have some common sense.

And yet you are still here. Why? Are you still here in a vain attempt to regain some credibility? Or are you just another teen acting out against your elders as some sort of cry for attention from a paternal figure?

Honestly, with the way you presented yourself I could care less. Go find another father figure, I don't want to talk to you until you learn how to talk to people with the respect and decorum that a man would show to his fellow person.

Later

I think the average wraithlord should be 7 toughness, or maxed at 7. as for an invul save, I think that maybe be pushing it a little far except for the idea of the dire avenger with the 5+ shimmershield-like save. The reason being that most eldar is not about invul shields at all, but rather shields on vehicles and shields only on seer councils.

I think that the current S/T stats would be more appropriate on someone like the avatar, as he IS supposed to be the God of War.

Wraithlords should max at 7 or 6 toughness, maybe even six as they aren't neccesarily tougher than the wraithgaurd, but would have more wounds. Like T6 W4 and make them more customizable

thats my 2 cents...

I reckon wraithords are good at T8, but as gameandwatch said, I think the avatar should be the same. I'd say a 4++ save shouly replace the 3+ though. Points adjusted as neccisary obv. I'd prefer a base 140 point wraithlord with an inv save than a 90 point one that draws all enemy AT fire for a turn and dies.

@ focused- I see where you're coming from, but although making viable options that arnt mechdar is a good thing it wont change the fact that (like in almost all other armies) transports make your army better. The only armies that do really well without are horde's, and thats definitly not eldar.

I dont know about Hawks and Spiders, they coud very easily perform the same job, so keeping them individual and both effective (without one being overshaddowed and made redundent by the other) might be difficult.

Basics to relieve some of the issues.

Wave Serpent - A Razorback with better armor and bigger capacity. Razor costs 40 serpent at least 100.
Is it really 2.5 times worthwhile??? Maybe a 20 pt discount with TL cannon, TL catapult built-in.

Falcon - It really got nerfed and doesn't see the light of day because there are much better heavy choices. Again reduce cost like serpent but make it a dedicated transport option. Include the shuriken cannon turret weapon for free.

Vehicles- Guardians at the controls need help. Give them some targeting perhaps even make them immune to night effects. WS 4 (with Targeting) would go a long way for all vehicles not just Prisms.

Guardians - 12" range weapons do not cut it in 5 ed. environment for sucky CC troops. Make them S3 Assault 2 18" as suggested above.

Add grenades for free.

I don't like WS/BS to go to 4 automatically but maybe
Avatar within 12" boost this in addition to making Fearless. 1 Platform per 6, 8 or 10. Allow support platforms to attach.

Aspect warriors - Base 2 attacks. WS 5 or BS 5 or even both. (Too bad your a dark reaper, you really don't ever use the WS 5). 2 attacks because every elite marine gets 2 base. WS 5 so they can survive in HTH. (My WS versus your T. Let's see what happens)

Spiders back to template vs I to wound. (Not all the 2nd ed foolishness but a template nonetheless.)

Spiders and hawks recosted down much like assault marines.

Exarchs - Same as aspects but Ld +1 and all the powers and special goodies. More of a subtle improvement on a standard aspect warrior.

Wraithlords - I like the T6 W4 idea. Leave the Sv 3+ and maybe a built in invulnerable. Can't be insty killed by any weapon but easier to deal with. Maybe allow squadrons or make them Wraithguard adds. (5 WG allows one WL) Make the sword +1 A and Rerolls.

Vypers become bikes with bike stat lines with 2 W.
With other proposed vehicles to BS4 they are left BS3 and can get locked in CC but gain jetbike assault move.

Weapon upgrades need to get sorted out. Same price to upgrade a falcon as a vyper? I don't think so. Same goes with vehicle upgrades.

Finally some vehicle upgrade or aspect ability that allows
scorpions and banshees to assault on disembarking. Not as vital to harlies as they have shadowseer to provide ground survival.

I can definitely see the wisdom of dropping Wraithlords to T6 or 7, but I'd want 4-5 wounds to compensate and the option of an invulnerable save. I agree with removing Falcons from the FOC and allowing them to be used as an army-wide dedicated transport option - I was ninja'd by DAaddict on that one! This combined with an Warpgate (drop pod option) would be a nice change. Allowing assaults out of Warpgates would give Banshees and Scorpions a nice advantage and eliminate any changes to those units specifically.

I like the idea of Hawks being a dedicated horde hunter. I wouldn't mind seeing the lasblaster as a S3 AP5 Assault 3 weapon though, to assist in that role. Their grenade packs are pretty effective vs. horde as a large blast, although multiple small blasts might be an option to consider on the Exarch, ala the Reaper Launcher. The squad would throw down the large blast and the exarch the multiple small blasts.

I'm not so sure on Spiders as an ambush assault unit, but I'm open to the idea. Their roles currently overlap with Hawks, but if Hawks were pushed to anti-horde, Spiders could focus on being a crowd control assault unit. I've always loved the idea of returning to template deathspinners, but having them be blast would be interesting as well. Add in the "units hit by template move as if in difficult terrain" rule from the new Nightspinner for a bit of theme-consistency and when combined with Hit and Run, assaulting Spiders just got a little more effective.

As far as Spears go, I always forget they're AP4 and not AP3. Their wargear shows that they're supposed to be an anti-armor hammer unit with Lance spears, but hitting AR12 with S6 Lance weapons is chancy, even with the Exarch's Star Lance. Raising them to AP1 would allow the chance for a glance on AR12 to actually destroy a vehicle as well. Eldar have a lot of options for tank hunters though, especially light transports, and I'd rather see them as heavy infantry hunters and make the lances power weapons all the time, but double S on the charge.

I'd keep Vypers as light vehicles - they're equivalent to Landspeeders and should remain such. I would like to see them gain Deep Strike, though. It would be neat to see a version of the Venom again - a Vyper as a small transport - but then I think we're stepping on the Storm's toes and look like we're keeping up with the Jones'.

Love the warp gate idea. Perhaps a new psychic ability. Maybe require a warlock, exarch, autarch or phoenix lord to go

Well, we're touching on a lot of new units here. I'm more fond of a conservative (read: realistic) codex changes, so here's my daily contribution.

Guardians. I'm not fond of improving the basic statline for Guardians. However you twist and turn, they are minutemen, militia, drafted soldiers with minimum training. They are super-human in agility, though, which is why they have the same combat profile as a human who's undergone formal military training (IG conscripts aren't rabble off the streets with guns, they're trained rabble off the streets).
A proposition, however, is to allow all Guardian units to purchase a Black Guardian upgrade. The cost differs between units, but entitles the Guardian a +1WS and +1BS statline. The current basic army is Ulthwé in design with the possibility for Iyanden, Alaitoc, or Saim-Hann. Biel-Tan armies aren't really possible to make in larger points values. Black Guardians are the name for Ulthwés standing army, but the possibility for such regiments on other craftworlds are certainly there! (Hell, the possilbity for craftworld-specific aspect warriors are very much real and explicitly stated that such exist and are common, the ones provided in codex are merely the universal ones)
A Black Guardian upgrade for Storm Guardians, who benefit less for it, may be +1 points. Defender Guardians, who gain (a) much improved Heavy Weapon could be +2. A War Walker could be looking at +10 to +15 points. A Support Platform may simply be given the upgrade for free since only the Vibro Cannon make any benefit from it.

Guardians also need some upgrades to make them interesting, I feel. Eldar in general are static - where a Tactical Marine Squad picks loadout, an Eldar choses a certain type of squad. The flexibility to do something with Defenders is a bit limited. Lasblasters is certainly an option, provided you take the time to model your troops a bit, although I prefer Shuricats to be mini-Avengers if we keep them in the infantry rather than support role.
Storm Guardians could be given a different CC weapon for +1 point each; choosing between chainsword (+1S) or Grav Sabre (re-roll misses). (Roughly, a grav sabre is weightless and easy to maneuver, but it still has it's mass intact and therefore retains it's force and impact strength)

Wraithlord. Back in 3rd edition you used to see Wraithlords a lot without weapon upgrades. This was in large part because they were point effective in the smaller battles that were standard back then. They had a lot of punch in melee and the game wasn't flooded with S6-10 AP1-3 weapons like you have to make them now-a-days.
If you add Wraithguard as a retinue-type optional upgrade for the lords, I don't think the improved amount of wounds or invulnerable saves are necessary at all! It's a very nice idea and I throughly like it, but the Wraithguard simply need to be improved in cost-efficiency first. It's nice with a tarpit, but when the rest of the army is do-or-die action, well... it's basically all the reasons why you don't pick an Avatar for a footslogging army, and more.

Falcon and Wave Serpent. Having them dedicated transports is all good and well, but I'd like to point out that one of the reasons why the thread was started was to provide more manageable and effective ways of making non-Mechdar lists! At the core of the Mechdar list is the durable and actually quite potent Wave Serpent as a tank. Improving it's cost-effectiveness will only result in more and more Mechdar, leaving the rest of the army in shame again.
Yes, Falcons need to have a cost revision, however. All in all, some vehicle upgrades could find their way in.
Anti-Gravity Bay - Allows troops transported to effortlessly and quickly disembark the vehicle. Troops count as having moved when disembarking, but may assault the same turn. (Some 15-20 points?)
Black Guardian - as explained above, provides the vehicle with +1BS and a Walker with +1WS and +1BS. Experienced crew, simply put.
Shimmer Shield - the vehicle is no longer treated as open topped. (+5 points?)
Energy Field - as in codex for Wave Serpent. (+20 points on tanks and +5 points on Vyper/WW? Or +5 points for entire squad of Vyper/WW?)
Crystal Targeting Matrix - The vehicle is capable of effectively slaving a weapon system to another. The crew are able to shoot one additional normal weapon system, provided they can shoot any normal weapon systems at all. (+10 points)*

I.e. a Fire Prism can move 11", and still use both the underslung Shuricannon and the Prism. A Falcon can move 11" and still use both the Pulse Laser and the Bright Lance.

Hawks and Spiders. Yes, these need separation. Here's a few suggestions for discussion, although I'm not sure what template against I mean:
Spiders gain rending? In melee as well, or just shooting?
Hawks becoming better on the table, remove skyleap in favour of something else and make the initial grenade slightly stronger?

Aaaand the usual reminder you need to put as soon as someone mentions the rude circle in threads like these:
1. We aren't trying to make elf-marines (say no to multi-purpose durable pointy-ears)
2. Certain changes require points increases or decreases, very few actually want to play an overpowered army (I'll refrain from taking cheap potshots on you-know-what army)
3. Just because one type of army composition is competitive doesn't mean the codex is anywhere near "fine". We're trying to broaden the choices, mainly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DAaddict wrote:Love the warp gate idea. Perhaps a new psychic ability. Maybe require a warlock, exarch, autarch or phoenix lord to go

I skimmed the 'net yesterday and came across the mention of Bonesingers in an Apocalypse setting, I believe. Didn't dig deep enough to get the rules for it, but could be a neat new HQ choice. Very Il-Kaithe sort of character. Below are some doodlings of my own

Songs of Creation - psychic powers
Call Webway Gate - summons a Webway Gate within 2" of the Bonesinger. Usable once. Webway Gate has AV12 and may be used to deploy reserves from. Units may also enter the webway gate to go back into reserves. Fleeing Eldar units treat the Webway Gate as a friendly table quarter. The Bonesinger may not use other psychic powers for the rest of the player turn.
Cage of Bone - One vehicle within 2" of the Bonesinger is encased in Wraithbone until the Bonesinger leaves coherency with it or until the Bonesinger uses a different power. The vehicle gain +1AV, to a maximum of 14, but may not move or shoot or otherwise function (any effects because of it's presence are also put on hold). Units transported inside are trapped until the effect end. Used in the assault phase instead of attacking.
Wild Growth - The Bonesinger calls forth crude, unshaped, wraithbone in his immediate proximity. Place a large blast marker centered on the Bonesinger. This area is treated as difficult terrain and provides non-monstrous creature infantry inside with a 4+ cover save. The effect end if the Bonesinger uses a different psychic power or moves out of the area. Used in the movement phase.
Strengthening Hymn - One wraith or vehicle vehicle within 6" of the Bonesinger is strengthened with +1 to save or +1 to AV as appropriate. This power will not affect characters joined with, for example, Wraithguard, and may only affect one unit at a time. The effect ends if the Bonesinger uses a different psychic power.

Statline like a Farseer, wargear like a Farseer minus Spirit Stones. Somewhere in the region of 100-150 points. All songs are known, they are not purchased - these are certainly difficult tricks to perform during preassure of combat, but none of the songs are very different from what is used in the creation of Eldar equipment outside the battlefield.

Liking a lot of the ideas in here. I know we can't have them all, but it would be hard to chose. HHmmm, lets first start with the last cool idea. I really like Mahtamori's idea for the bonesinger.

Did you think about giving the bonesinger an ability to regenerate wounds on Wraith Lords?

It crossed my mind. Repairing Wraithlords and vehicles (much like Techmarines, but since it's a psychic power and the entire purpose of the Bonesinger is to sing the hymns it should be fully reliable) could be an interesting effect, more interesting than the Strengthening Hymn...

Gorechild wrote:@ focused- I see where you're coming from, but although making viable options that arnt mechdar is a good thing it wont change the fact that (like in almost all other armies) transports make your army better. The only armies that do really well without are horde's, and thats definitly not eldar.

I dont know about Hawks and Spiders, they coud very easily perform the same job, so keeping them individual and both effective (without one being overshaddowed and made redundent by the other) might be difficult.

I understand about the transports making the army better but I feel that if their cost stays about the same, while units are improved, that the Dependence upon them might be reduced.

I want for there to be synergies with these units and others.
1)With the Spiders I want a unit that reduces the risks of warp jumps(Maybe lets them assault after deep strike. Maybe the Harlequins combined with webgates?Just brain storming here.
2) The Hawks would be better as the anti-horde but as to how to make them a cohesive part of the Army, I'm not sure. These are my current ideas. Make them the eyes in the sky, while in reserve they have an intercept/overwatch ability that allows units with warlocks to shoot or maybe the Hawks get intercept those deepstriking units with a bonus when within range of certain units.

DAaddict wrote:A whole bunch of stuff.

Hi DA, thanks for joining the conversation. I'm going to give you a little bit of a hard time here but please don't take it as me being angry.
I said that I didn't want huge wishlists but rather a one at a time approach. Seeing as the Djinni is out of the bottle I will try to address these before returning to a more focused discussion.

Now that that is over lets look at these ideas.

1)WaveSerpents have huge advantages over Rhinos. A better comparison would be the Valk/Vendetta which is in a similar point range. IMO, the only thing that needs addressing on the Waveserpents is weapon and upgrade costs should be reduced.

2)Falc is fine on points but the weapons on the Turret should count as a single system when firing but seperate systems when assessing damage. Again, weapon and upgreade costs should be reduced.

3)I'm advocating base BS of 4 for guardians, I think that Crystal Targeting Matrix returns but not as uber-cheesy JSJ. Instead it reduces cover by 1(2 on a to hit roll of 6).

4)Agree, yes included grenades.

5)Disagree here. IMO, the Avatar should convey +1 attack and +1 S on units within 12". No boost to BS because I don't see bloodlust making them a better shot.

6)Sort of agree on the aspects but still feel their stats should reflect their combat orientation/specialization. Yes, base 2 attacks. If didnot note such earlier then it was a mistake of ommission.

7)Disagree, Spiders weapon as blast with area under blasr becoming dangerous terrain until something passes through the area.

8)Disagree, Spiders and Hawks need a rework to properly define their rolls within the army.

9)Agree to a point. Exarchs should come with one basic power and have access to upgrades.

10)Agree, with some adjusting. Like the wraithlord ideas, want to dicuss more and estimate pricing.

11)Disagree because I have other idea for the Vyper chassis.(Venoms/Adders Nest Squadron)

12)Weapon upgrades are too broad of a topic to comment upon at this time.

13)Agree for Harlies but not for Scorpions. Scorpions are foot stalkers. Want modified Venoms that operate like a piranha squadron. Would have 2-3 per venom transport capacity and intelligent rules where when moving fast only the transported models on a wrecked Venom are killed during a crash. Transported units would be acrobatic like banshees and harlies. Maybe allow dismounts when moving fast but take dangerous terrain tests.

Some very good ideas here. at some point in a couple of pages I will coalate the things most seem to be agreeing upon as valid and "feeling right".

Look forward to discussing your ideas on a more unit by unit basis. That way we can all make our cases for or against certain ideas.

Gavin Thorne wrote:I can definitely see the wisdom of dropping Wraithlords to T6 or 7, but I'd want 4-5 wounds to compensate and the option of an invulnerable save. I agree with removing Falcons from the FOC and allowing them to be used as an army-wide dedicated transport option - I was ninja'd by DAaddict on that one! This combined with an Warpgate (drop pod option) would be a nice change. Allowing assaults out of Warpgates would give Banshees and Scorpions a nice advantage and eliminate any changes to those units specifically.

I like the idea of Hawks being a dedicated horde hunter. I wouldn't mind seeing the lasblaster as a S3 AP5 Assault 3 weapon though, to assist in that role. Their grenade packs are pretty effective vs. horde as a large blast, although multiple small blasts might be an option to consider on the Exarch, ala the Reaper Launcher. The squad would throw down the large blast and the exarch the multiple small blasts.

I'm not so sure on Spiders as an ambush assault unit, but I'm open to the idea. Their roles currently overlap with Hawks, but if Hawks were pushed to anti-horde, Spiders could focus on being a crowd control assault unit. I've always loved the idea of returning to template deathspinners, but having them be blast would be interesting as well. Add in the "units hit by template move as if in difficult terrain" rule from the new Nightspinner for a bit of theme-consistency and when combined with Hit and Run, assaulting Spiders just got a little more effective.

As far as Spears go, I always forget they're AP4 and not AP3. Their wargear shows that they're supposed to be an anti-armor hammer unit with Lance spears, but hitting AR12 with S6 Lance weapons is chancy, even with the Exarch's Star Lance. Raising them to AP1 would allow the chance for a glance on AR12 to actually destroy a vehicle as well. Eldar have a lot of options for tank hunters though, especially light transports, and I'd rather see them as heavy infantry hunters and make the lances power weapons all the time, but double S on the charge.

I'd keep Vypers as light vehicles - they're equivalent to Landspeeders and should remain such. I would like to see them gain Deep Strike, though. It would be neat to see a version of the Venom again - a Vyper as a small transport - but then I think we're stepping on the Storm's toes and look like we're keeping up with the Jones'.

Hey Gavin, Thanks for joining the discussion.

Lets go through your ideas/suggestions.

1) The response to dropping the Wraithlords Toughness has suprised me. I figured it to be a hard sell but yeah, I like T7 W3 with a 3+ 5++ save or T 6 W5 2+ 5++ save. Personally, I like the T7 W3 version.

2) Falcs, Should stay available as heavies but shoould also become a dedcated transport option for the Seer Council. Maybe tie the Falc's to my proposed idea of the hawks having overwatch or they can both deepstrike and one improves the others accuracy?

3)I don't like the idea of on the field Webway Gates as a common thing. I'd rather that they were represented by the Eldar getting a universal outflank ability that was discussed earlier in the thread.

4)I like most of your suggestions on the Hawks and look forward to getting into the details when I'm not in the middle of a massive reply.

5)I agree about the Spiders. Ithink that thie mission may be as a roadblock unit. they throw out barrier that don't necessarily stop movement but make such movements slower and dangerous.

6)Agree, the spears do seem like they would fit the roll of heavy infantry/ light vehicle hunters really well. The next set of rules needs to specify that the Spears bikes are Eldar Jetbikes.

7)We seem to be thinking along similar lines here as well. There is a lot of room for expansion in the Vypers roll in the army. Did I mention that I'm a Saim Hann fan.

Look forward to you participation in the thread.

Mahtamori wrote: A bunch of stuff

Not trying to be rude, just the thread exploded with ideas and am having trouble getting to all of them.

Now, about your ideas.
1)I think you've hit upon a compromise that would work nicely. The Black Guardian upgrade is an elegant solution to the debate of guardian weapon and balistic skill. There are still details that would have to be worked out all across the board but this feels like the right direction.

2)Your idea about the Wraithlord is good. I would venture that the drop in toughness idea and joining to a wraithguard retinue type unit are not exclusive. There wouldn't be much of a need for a shield if they had Feel No Pain. Very much looking forward to discussing this in detail.

3)I like your Falcon,Wave Serp, and Fire Prism ideas as much as I like my own. Maybe even better.

4)UUhh Yeah, the Hawks and Spiders I have general ideas for but they really need work. I definetly want the Spiders weapons to be Blast and have some other effect and see them as a roadblock unit. Hawks as a powerful anti-Horde unit works but will still need something else. I'm trying to figure out how the new combined arms theme would play out in the next eldar codex and I can see one or both of these units presence on the board working to give other units a boost of some sort. I think that I might want to focus on these guys next. There is something about the Hawks and Spiders that is really hard to pin down to where they feel right.

5) I like the Bone Singers. I might have a couple of ideas but want to take time and really think anout those powers.

Captain Avatar wrote:Liking a lot of the ideas in here. I know we can't have them all, but it would be hard to chose. HHmmm, lets first start with the last cool idea. I really like Mahtamori's idea for the bonesinger.

Did you think about giving the bonesinger an ability to regenerate wounds on Wraith Lords?

Hey Captain, welcome to the discussion.
I like thes idea, It would be a nice fit for the Eldar. The only problem I can see with the power is that some might gripe about it making the bone singer an eldar Techmarine.
Really good idea, though.

Mahtamori wrote:It crossed my mind. Repairing Wraithlords and vehicles (much like Techmarines, but since it's a psychic power and the entire purpose of the Bonesinger is to sing the hymns it should be fully reliable) could be an interesting effect, more interesting than the Strengthening Hymn...

What I said to Captain Avatar^. I think you could write a better version of the rule than I. Would like to see it but would need to be balanced with no movement maybe.

Wow thats a lot of replies since yesterday

Anyway, down to business.
I really like the bone singer idea, it would need alot of thought and testing to make them work and not cross over with any other units, but I think it could be good! I like the webway gate idea, Focused or Mahtamori (cant be bothered to read back through everything ) said about it being better that to represent this by allowing reserves to enter from any non-enemy board edge. I like this idea also but could see it being a special rule confered by an Autarch.

Master Stratagist - Such is the stratigic brilliance of the eldar autarch's that they can used their unparalelled speed to outfank any foe. If an army contains atleast one Autarch, any allied units entering from reserve may use any non-enemy board edge to arrive from.

@ Focused- Give us a unit to sort out, Its getting a little overwhelming having everyone assessing every unit in the codex at the same time you shoud take charge, its your thread after all

Ask and ye shall recieve, at least in this case.

From what has been said, I get the feeling that most of the Aspects are close to right for 5th ed, but that there are 2 that stand out as a problem. The Swooping Hawks and the Warp Spiders.

So I'd like to discuss these two units. They are both Fast Attacks that are good units but they currently don't get used. IMO, The reasons for their lack of use seems to stem more from a lack of synergy with the rest of the army or that as anti-infantry units they have languished the past several years through a Mechanized meta-game. It could also be that they don't put out enough danage for thier points but that could be attributed to the increased prevalence of Special rules like FnP and the increased amount of cover making 6+ and worse horde units much more durable.

For this discussion, I've put the idea forward that these two units overlap a bit and need to be better defined. I've also proposed that the Swooping Hawks should be desinged as an Eyes in the Sky unit that are also effective for anti-horde duty, while the Warp Spiders might need to serve as a roadblock unit that has a possible synergy with the proposed web gates.

These ideas of mine are very general and just don't seem to be "there" yet. I'd appreciate it if all of you could focus on these two units for now. Brainstorm, completely over-haul the unit, some little tweak, or anything else. What you can come up with that will help fix the Swooping Hawks and the Warp Spiders.

Discuss away.



@ All Posters- Yesterday saw a lot of really good ideas and while I do not want to diminish this level of enthusiasm I would really like to narrow the focus to these two units for a bit. Anyone that wants to question this, I refer you to the opening post and the goal of this thread.

Thank you

As many people have suggested Hawk's to be anti-horde im going to chalenge this idea. I see dire avengers as the main anti horde power within an eldar army, being abe to put out 35 S4 AP5 shots from a single unit with the possibility of rerolls on both the "to hit" and "to wound" roll's if acompanied by a seer is more than adequet. I supose it coud be possible to have hawks perform a the same general roll as long as there is another point that would make them more individual. I'd suggest that Hawks could be used as a unit for harrassing MEQ's, or possibly terminator hunters.

As focused said, both FA aspects suffer from a lack of synergy with the rest of the army, It could be that they are made to compliment eachother and work together independently together.

I dont have any particular suggestions (I rarely ever use either aspect so im pretty ignorant as far as this will go) but instead of trying to tie both units in to work with the whole eldar warhost they could be made as a FA double team. Opinions?

This is a tough one. I like both units but they have caused an eyebrow to raise for their past two incarnations. I always thought it a little ironic(?)/weird that the Swooping Hawks carried a Web of Skulls.

I would like to see the Web of Skulls come back in some balanced form but given to the Warp Spiders. I like the idea of making the Death Spinners into blast weapons. If they get a secial rule then the weapon profile might need toning down, especially if it comes with some form of an entangled rule like when what happens if a vehicle is destroyed while moving and passengers are inside.

The Hawks? Maybe drop the AP of their weapons. Make them a better for of the hotshot lasgun with this profile:
Range 18" S3 AP3 Assault 2
Then taking from the fluff about Souls of Murdered kin possessing a hawk that hovers over the guilty you could give them a spotter ability that allows re-rolls to hit on any enemy unit within 12". This would be because the hawks are able to hover/glide over the enemy(?).


That is all that I can think of or now. Don't know if these ideas are are anygood but wanted to help get the ball rolling.


Maybe the

Hmmm. Gorechild brings up some interesting contrast to the role of Hawks, but I'd also like to tie Focused's concepts in with them.

While Dire Avengers are currently an excellent anti-horde unit, I don't think that hawks have ever been intended for countering heavy infantry with lasblasters as their primary weapon, although their use of krak grenades (in 2nd edition, iirc) would have fit the bill so to speak. With that being said, I think re-tasking Hawks to be an anti-deepstrike unit is a great idea and personally feel that Shining Spears would fill the role of anti-HI more effectively, but I'd like to hear what changes Gorechild proposes to make Hawks effective against MEQ and termies.

1. I really dig the idea for hawks to be an "Eyes in the Sky" unit capable of creating anti-deep strike or anti-infiltrate zones like space pup's Chooser of the Slain. It's a great concept and the piece of art showing a hawk sniping while "on the bounce" comes to mind.

This ability could be implemented or augmented with a synergy effect from an Autarch - while the Autarch is with the Hawk's unit and they are held in reserve, units may not infiltrate or deepstrike within 12-18" of an eldar unit.

2. An alternate idea (with or without the Autarch supporting) is that on the turn that the Hawks arrive from deep strike, their grenade attack can be used to create an area of dangerous terrain for deepstrikers in place of dropping a template. "Distortion grenades utilize holographic technology similar to Harlequin Holo-Suits to bend and twist light randomly over an area. The resulting visual chaos can move the image of trees, solid ground, and other terrain making it difficult for jump infantry to safely land and teleporters to get a lock on the area."

3. Another art-inspired concept comes from the warp spider and striking scorpion hunting a common foe - utilizing spiders to tarpit units in difficult terrain that scorpions can then assault into. Something along these lines: Range 12" S6 AP- Assault 1, Blast, Tangle* Units hit by a Tangle weapon act as if they were in difficult terrain until the end of their turn. I'd consider downgrading the strength of the weapon to account for the blast hitting more targets and the additional effect of the weapon, possibly adding Pinning to the effect as well.

However it is done, the role of Hawks and Spiders need to be defined, and in addition to this, Shining Spears need to be looked at and taken into account. The Fast Attack category has three aspect warriors which all need their role defined and which are all vastly different from the Vypers.
So if you put Hawks to be anti-GEQ, spiders to be anti-MEQ, you need something for Shining Spears to do. At the moment, Shining Spears are shock-troops, but they only really function against targets they can kill which aren't supported - a very narrow role.

Hawks. Having Hawks as the anti-GEQ suits them. Their blasters mean they can touch down far from the real danger of being assaulted, and outside of rapid fire range. The drawback compared to Spiders is that there is a very real risk of fire-fight retaliation. Skyleap does offer a very good opportunity to avoid being boxed in, but the question is whether it would actually benefit the squad if you improve their functionality on the field instead of insertion-reinsertion.
Furthermore, the hawk grenades need to be addressed. They are a weapon which doesn't at all scale with the number of hawks, although if it was reduced to a gimmick where the real punch from the unit came from their weapons, it would be a completely different matter.
If Hawks become the anti-MEQ unit instead, they are equally suited for it. The hawk grenades would make less sense in that case, though, and the descriptor of the rifles they carry would need to be changed to plasma technology - something which is of much less issue for them as models - but also the number of shots need to go down and the exarch's weapons need to be re-made. Here's a suggestion:
Star Rifle - 24" S4 AP3 Assault 1
Sun Rifle - 24" S6 AP2 Assault 1 (Exarch weapon, role emphasis option)
Hawk Talon - 24" S4 AP5 Assault 4 (Exarch weapon, diversification option)

Separate suggestion for grenade pack:
Radioluminescent Grenades - S- AP- Small circular template. A unit hit with the pigments inside this grenade will find themselves exposed to a very effective and hard to remove marker paint. For the duration of the battle, any units hit with these grenades add +1 to any cover saves and may also not be hidden by effects of low-light conditions such as night-fighting.

Spiders. Since they already provide a large volume of fire, I hold that one of the easiest fixes to make them more anti-MEQ is to simply make their weapons rending.
More exotic solutions such as targeting initiative value has drawbacks, it is above all not an inherent trait of MEQ to be low initiative, and would miss the mark against most marines while being far too effective against Necrons.
If you wish to make spiders more anti-GEQ, then we've already got a very, very, good basis for it. They already provide a good volume of fire, and if their competence in hand-to-hand is increased in the area of number of attacks, they become effective shock troops against larger number, but individually weaker, models.
Surprise Assault need to be remodelled in either case, and applying it so that the Spiders lead by an exarch with this power count as; having assault grenades, and may teleport into close combat (increases assault distance); may reinforce the anti-GEQ role.

As for Shining Spears, well... they die horribly if they expose themselves to reinforcements, counter-assaults or if the target they attack can soak their attacks and are in a normal assault phase stronger than them (which a fairly large size unit of anything-at-all is, be they shooty or choppy). As a unit concept they are very interesting, but you risk doing things to them which just isn't intended if you aren't careful.
If they become too cheap, they will become the standard choice in just about any army since having a fast shock troop around is really good if you can afford it - serving both offensively and defensively by clearing out deep-strikers (who have a tendency to meet the criteria of being alone enough that the SSpears can actually survive an attack)
If they become too tough, they will become a fast tar pit with a punishing charge. Actually, that's very interesting, but risk straying too far from the Eldar feeling.

The biggest problem with Shining Spears is that they are primarily used against MEQ and MCs, but that their stats outside of the charge make them glorified Defender Guardians when not charging. A simple proposition is to make the spears power weapons permanently with the strength bonus on the charge.

Since, regrettably, you can't actually speed up a unit any more than they've already been predetermined, it seems we need to find a way to speed them up, or they'll get shot up. Why not give the Shining Spears scout? If they're supposed to be shock troopers, but you don't want them to be a tarpit, give them a high initiative and scout. Or, you could let them move in the assault phase to give them a sort of 'drive by' feel. Maybe both?

The Shining Spears seem like a high risk, high reward unit. They should move fast, get in close, smash into something and try to make it out alive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's another idea; if you want the Shining Spears to be CC, give them Hit & Run. We could even give them the Turbo Boosters USR. I haven't seen that one since I had read the BGB.

Edit: Forgot they already had Hit & Run. Ignore that.

This is how I see it.
In 40k you can draw out 3 or 4 vague groups of units/armies : MEQ Infantry, GEQ Infantry, Vehicles/MC. (yes I know I'm being VERY loose with these groupings) To kill MEQ's you need AP2-3 or massed fire. GEQ's need lots of massed fire or templates. Vehicles/MC's need a few high strength low AP attacks/shots.
There are 3 FA aspects, Hawks, Spears and Spiders, each of which could be used for fighting one of these 3 groups. I don't know which out of hawks and spiders would be most easily adapted to fight GEQ's or MEQ's though.
I'm leaning towards Hawks for killing marines. Mahtamori's idea for changing star/sun rifle's would pretty much sort that issue, then grenade packs ect can be tweaked to suit.
Spiders could have S3/4 Assault 3 AP5 and exarch's could get an assault small blast weapon maybe with the same monofilament wire rule as the night spinner.
I've already said my idea to fix shining spears, but i'll tweak it now following what others have said. Scout USR, Can assault 12", S6 on the charge (exarch S8), can attack rear armour of all vehicle's (even walkers) in assault. Opinions?

crazypsyko666: They already can JSJ

Gorechild: How would 12" charge work with the Jetbikes' internal 12"-6" JSJ?

Normal assault units are either hard to kill or plenty to kill, but the Shining Spears are few and relatively soft. What about simply reducing their points slightly to more reflect their current performance? Maybe increase squad max size?

Mahtamori wrote:crazypsyko666: They already can JSJ

How the hell am I missing this?

@Mahtamori- I'm not certain, it was just a suggestion and hadn't looked into it in any real depth. How does this sound:

In the assault phase, any unit of Shining Spears can forego moving normally to make a 12" assault movement (unhindered by any terrain or interviening models). Any model that ends up with their base touching the hull of an enemy vehicle may resolve all their attacks against the AV of the facing they are touching (even against walkers).

Sound reasonable? my thoughts being, that with a small unit costed as they currently are they would have a reasonable chance of destroying dred's ect but if they fail they would most likely be destroyed. They would act as a spearhead to dive in and take out walkers, and then speed away from rapid fire distance of surounding enemies. This might help remove eldars dependance on dragons a bit. The way i've figured out costing them would see a uint of 3 (1 being and exarch) at 187 points, on average they'd get 2 penetrating hits on the rear of a dred when they charge. Does that sound reasonable? if not what might be an appropriate change? +1 on vehicle damage chart? point cost cut/increase?

I realise were deviating from the warp spider/swooping hawks debate, anybody got any other suggestions regarding them?

If we place the FA's down in a somewhat comfortable position, although I admit that these changes are far reaching, we could have:

Spiders: Anti-GEQ. Template weapon, S6 Ap-, unit hit is in difficult (and dangerous?) terrain next time it moves. (Remove or reduce second teleport danger since now they need to land closer to enemy?). Cost increase?
Hawks: Anti-MEQ. Change Lasblasters to plasma Star Rifles. 24" S4 Ap3 Assault 1.
Shining Spears: Alpha-strike (anti light vehicle, MC, or super heavy infantry). Point of discussion.

@ Gorechild: I was just curious if you thought about upping their shooting phase movement entirely, or if it was exclusively the charge. I don't personally think placement, or area-of-effect, is an issue for them, it's more the fact that it's a very expensive unit of flying space marines you've got out there if they are charged or if they stick around for second round of combat.
Now, the laser lances have a shooting attack which has an oddly high value on AP considering that in close combat they are ignore-armour. What if Laser Lances shooting attack was AP2, Star Lance shooting attack was S8 AP2, and the melee attack had the lancing property as well?

Regarding Spiders. Surprise Assault need to be changed regardless. What if it granted an additional attack on charge and had the unit count as having plasma grenades? Alternatively, what if Surprise Assault was changed to something like Warp Crawler where the unit would either have a more reliable second warp (say roll 3, pick highest 2) or suffer perils only on snake eyes or similar?
As for the weapon itself, it will force massive amounts of damage to horde armies, easily upping the number of hits by more than 3 times from the current incarnation, if we add on a swamp effect similar to the Nightspinner... they suddenly give a huge punch. Massive punch. Even downgrading the weapons to normal flamer properties, you still have a really fast, slightly heavy, and very elusive troop popping around on the table dropping template madness. A minimum squad with exarch will drop 6 templates... that's enough to decimate MEQ and heavier.
While I like this prospect, how many points would they be? Having people fill 3 FA slots with all spiders regardless of army is not the intention, either.

I'm going to have to side with the spiders=anti-GEQ party. Lots of scattering templates with low strengh high AP (#) sounds good. I assume they and the hawks could both JSJ, but how good would they be at assault? Would they strictly be shooting units with an option for a sergeant PW or something? They don't seem like assault units to me.

Hawks are currently not able to JSJ, but they can use an exarch power to make a normal move from table to reinforcement pile.

The Spider exarch is a tiny bit like the Swooping Hawk exarch from 3rd edition: you're capable of kitting him like half a CC monster, since he can get two PW (the actual model will look crap if you don't give him these). Back in 3rd edition, Swooping Hawks had the Web of Skulls (basically, each attack that hit = one more attack until you don't score more hits), which on a high WS model was silly.
No, I don't think spiders should be lethal in CC, unless you give the exarch an exarch power to do so, preferably and conveniently called Surprise Assault - but in this case it shouldn't be a main source of attack, but a means to clean a dying squad up. Let Shining Spears, Banshees, and Scorpions be the CCers. In fact, the Scorpions are capable of infiltrating with the correct exarch, so they should be able to do the anti-horde melee tango (or just dump them somewhere appropriate with a serpent).

How does this look for a Deathspinner profile:
Flame template; Strength 3; Armour Piercing -; Assault 1. A unit hit with the Deathspinner is treated like being in difficult and dangerous terrain the next time they move.

This cuts it's anti-vehicle power down drastically, makes the unit in general a harassment unit, and also gives GEQ a bad, but survivable, time. In numbers, the chance to kill one GEQ is 0,333 + 0,166 and the chance to kill one smurf is 0,111 + 0,166. I'm writing it as two chances since the second chance is independent from the actual attack - i.e. more deathspinners will not increase the number of casualties from dangerous terrain.
Big question is, though: dangerous terrain or only difficult terrain?

First of all, Hawks need to be able to JSJ. I don't see them being anything more than shooting units.

@Mahtamori: I like your deathspinner, but it may need at least AP6. Let me do some mathhammer...

Against a cover save of 4+, a squad of 10 hitting approximately 6 GEQ units each will get about 10 wounds on the enemy.

Against an armor save of 6, that same squad is likely to get 17 wounds on them. That's a lot of damage, considering how quickly this unit can move around. How expensive will it be? How much punishment will it be able to take? Because that's an average of one squad dead per turn.

You don't want hawks or spiders to be any good in assault. In fact, I think them sucking in assault would be a good thing. Being able to drop a load of plates on an enemy then assault them would remove the need for banshees and scorpions.
I reckon a spider/scorpion or banshee/hawk combo would be standard for fighting horde or MEQ respectively. Spiders could bog down a unit to allow scorpions to clear out the remaining men whilst the spiders bog down surrounding units to prevent the scorp's being tar pitted. Hawks would fly in, shoot, fall back and allow the banshee's to do what they do best. this way the 2 units work in harmony with one another and (despite not relying entirely on one another) make a powerful combo.

crazypsycho666, template weapons deny cover saves, so they're not an issue if the deathspinner takes that route.

I agree with gorechild that CC aspects should be doing the melee and that the fast attack units are more support-related. However, Exarchs notwithstanding, with S3 Lasblasters and pie-plate attacks, Hawks have always been an anti-horde/GEQ unit. Moving them away from this role seems counter-intuitive in my opinion.

The role of Spiders hasn't been easier to define, but the current S6 AP- Assault 2 Deathspinners also makes them an effective anti-GEQ unit, as well as a light transport's nightmare. My own version proposed S4, which would make them slightly more effective vs. meq, but with a 3+ armor save meq's wouldn't be taking wounds as much as they'd be bogged down from the tertiary terrain effect. I feel that Spiders would work best in a support role like gorechild describes above, acting to counter tarpits and allowing units like SS and HB to whittle down enemy units one by one. Very synergestic. Is that even a word?

It is a word now.

Having all spinner weapons as the tertiary terrain effect seems like an interesting choice. Eldar may no longer be able to speed past everyone like in previous editions, but if we can't run faster we can make sure they don't run at all.

The big question remains, though, regarding killing power. Spiders and Hawks still must not occupy the same "slot", or you'll just see the better of them and not the other. If the spiders move more towards tar-pit and harassment, what can be done about actual killing power for the Hawks? Are the lasblasters good enough? More shots or better stats or simply lower the point cost of the hawks to reflect their performance? What about Hawk's Talons for ALL hawks?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry for going back to an earlier idea which was somewhat closed, but... Eldar squads as psychers... this is a whole package:
* Warlocks are no longer a unit on their own, but may be taken as Guardian sargents (0-1 ea.) or Farseer retinue (0-3 ea.).
* Warlock stats are upgraded to have "vetaran" Guardian statline instead of the current Black Guardian statline.
* Any non-wraith Eldar infantry may take one of the current Warlock powers - except Destructor. This represents their common will. Independent characters may not select one of these, but benefit from the power if joined to a squad which has it. I.e. HQ units, Vehicles, Wraithguard, or Wraithlord may not take these powers.
* Warlocks have access to Destructor, Mind War (enemy units in melee with Warlock 3D6 choose lowest 2 on LD tests) or Soulslayer (when wounding a multi-wound creature in melee, LD test will destroy it, i.e. lite version of force weapon)
* Farseers have access to only supportive power. Eldritch storm changed to anti-deep striking (say... any unit landing within 18" suffer a mishap on 4+ or something).

Might kill off the deathstar, or it might make it worse. I actually have no clue which. My intention is not to make it stronger (I dislike the concept of deathstars). Makes Warlocks into warriors. Puts Psycher back into Craftworld Eldar. Adds configurable army-wide special rules. Gives anti-DS protection.

Sorry I've been gone so long. I want to thank you guys for continuing without me and for staying focused on these problem units.

I'm going to go through your posts and then will sum up at the bottom.

Captain Avatar wrote:This is a tough one. I like both units but they have caused an eyebrow to raise for their past two incarnations. I always thought it a little ironic(?)/weird that the Swooping Hawks carried a Web of Skulls.

I would like to see the Web of Skulls come back in some balanced form but given to the Warp Spiders. I like the idea of making the Death Spinners into blast weapons. If they get a secial rule then the weapon profile might need toning down, especially if it comes with some form of an entangled rule like when what happens if a vehicle is destroyed while moving and passengers are inside.

The Hawks? Maybe drop the AP of their weapons. Make them a better for of the hotshot lasgun with this profile:
Range 18" S3 AP3 Assault 2
Then taking from the fluff about Souls of Murdered kin possessing a hawk that hovers over the guilty you could give them a spotter ability that allows re-rolls to hit on any enemy unit within 12". This would be because the hawks are able to hover/glide over the enemy(?).

1)Yes, bring back web of skulls in a non-op form and give it to the Spiders. Maybe make it an additional hit for every 4+(5+?) rolled to hit in the assault phase if the overall unit strength is lowered .

2)Good Idea about how to make the Hawks anti-meq, I'm just not sold on the idea of them becoming Anti-meq.

3)The forward spotters idea I really like. I am unsure if it should be auto matic or if the Hawks should have to do something that exposes them to danger in order to use the ability. Will have to think about it.

Gavin Thorne wrote:While Dire Avengers are currently an excellent anti-horde unit, I don't think that hawks have ever been intended for countering heavy infantry with lasblasters as their primary weapon, although their use of krak grenades (in 2nd edition, iirc) would have fit the bill so to speak. With that being said, I think re-tasking Hawks to be an anti-deepstrike unit is a great idea and personally feel that Shining Spears would fill the role of anti-HI more effectively, but I'd like to hear what changes Gorechild proposes to make Hawks effective against MEQ and termies.

1. I really dig the idea for hawks to be an "Eyes in the Sky" unit capable of creating anti-deep strike or anti-infiltrate zones like space pup's Chooser of the Slain. It's a great concept and the piece of art showing a hawk sniping while "on the bounce" comes to mind.

This ability could be implemented or augmented with a synergy effect from an Autarch - while the Autarch is with the Hawk's unit and they are held in reserve, units may not infiltrate or deepstrike within 12-18" of an eldar unit.

2. An alternate idea (with or without the Autarch supporting) is that on the turn that the Hawks arrive from deep strike, their grenade attack can be used to create an area of dangerous terrain for deepstrikers in place of dropping a template. "Distortion grenades utilize holographic technology similar to Harlequin Holo-Suits to bend and twist light randomly over an area. The resulting visual chaos can move the image of trees, solid ground, and other terrain making it difficult for jump infantry to safely land and teleporters to get a lock on the area."

3. Another art-inspired concept comes from the warp spider and striking scorpion hunting a common foe - utilizing spiders to tarpit units in difficult terrain that scorpions can then assault into. Something along these lines: Range 12" S6 AP- Assault 1, Blast, Tangle* Units hit by a Tangle weapon act as if they were in difficult terrain until the end of their turn. I'd consider downgrading the strength of the weapon to account for the blast hitting more targets and the additional effect of the weapon, possibly adding Pinning to the effect as well.

1)I like the idea for the pairing with the Autarch. It has always seemed to me that the Autarch was suppossed to be the Exarch/Phoenix Lord for the aspects that that didn't get them. He really pairs up nicely with the Warp spiders and the Shining Spears as he currently stands. It has been the strength of other units like the seer council and the pricing/damage output of these Aspects that has kept these Autarch combos off of the game board.

2)Do not want the Hawks creating tar pits. It doesn't fit conceptually. It makes more sense for the Spiders to do so.

3)Thats the Idea. Spiders as a tarpit unit that synergizes with the other units. This is about as dead on to the concept as possible. I'd want to add that the Spiders should be able to assault to take advantage of the entangle ment but that they should not be as good as the Scorpions.

Mahtamori wrote:However it is done, the role of Hawks and Spiders need to be defined, and in addition to this, Shining Spears need to be looked at and taken into account. The Fast Attack category has three aspect warriors which all need their role defined and which are all vastly different from the Vypers.
So if you put Hawks to be anti-GEQ, spiders to be anti-MEQ, you need something for Shining Spears to do. At the moment, Shining Spears are shock-troops, but they only really function against targets they can kill which aren't supported - a very narrow role.

Hawks. Having Hawks as the anti-GEQ suits them. Their blasters mean they can touch down far from the real danger of being assaulted, and outside of rapid fire range. The drawback compared to Spiders is that there is a very real risk of fire-fight retaliation. Skyleap does offer a very good opportunity to avoid being boxed in, but the question is whether it would actually benefit the squad if you improve their functionality on the field instead of insertion-reinsertion.
Furthermore, the hawk grenades need to be addressed. They are a weapon which doesn't at all scale with the number of hawks, although if it was reduced to a gimmick where the real punch from the unit came from their weapons, it would be a completely different matter.
If Hawks become the anti-MEQ unit instead, they are equally suited for it. The hawk grenades would make less sense in that case, though, and the descriptor of the rifles they carry would need to be changed to plasma technology - something which is of much less issue for them as models - but also the number of shots need to go down and the exarch's weapons need to be re-made. Here's a suggestion:
Star Rifle - 24" S4 AP3 Assault 1
Sun Rifle - 24" S6 AP2 Assault 1 (Exarch weapon, role emphasis option)
Hawk Talon - 24" S4 AP5 Assault 4 (Exarch weapon, diversification option)

Separate suggestion for grenade pack:
Radioluminescent Grenades - S- AP- Small circular template. A unit hit with the pigments inside this grenade will find themselves exposed to a very effective and hard to remove marker paint. For the duration of the battle, any units hit with these grenades add +1 to any cover saves and may also not be hidden by effects of low-light conditions such as night-fighting.

Spiders. Since they already provide a large volume of fire, I hold that one of the easiest fixes to make them more anti-MEQ is to simply make their weapons rending.
More exotic solutions such as targeting initiative value has drawbacks, it is above all not an inherent trait of MEQ to be low initiative, and would miss the mark against most marines while being far too effective against Necrons.
If you wish to make spiders more anti-GEQ, then we've already got a very, very, good basis for it. They already provide a good volume of fire, and if their competence in hand-to-hand is increased in the area of number of attacks, they become effective shock troops against larger number, but individually weaker, models.
Surprise Assault need to be remodelled in either case, and applying it so that the Spiders lead by an exarch with this power count as; having assault grenades, and may teleport into close combat (increases assault distance); may reinforce the anti-GEQ role.

As for Shining Spears, well... they die horribly if they expose themselves to reinforcements, counter-assaults or if the target they attack can soak their attacks and are in a normal assault phase stronger than them (which a fairly large size unit of anything-at-all is, be they shooty or choppy). As a unit concept they are very interesting, but you risk doing things to them which just isn't intended if you aren't careful.
If they become too cheap, they will become the standard choice in just about any army since having a fast shock troop around is really good if you can afford it - serving both offensively and defensively by clearing out deep-strikers (who have a tendency to meet the criteria of being alone enough that the SSpears can actually survive an attack)
If they become too tough, they will become a fast tar pit with a punishing charge. Actually, that's very interesting, but risk straying too far from the Eldar feeling.

The biggest problem with Shining Spears is that they are primarily used against MEQ and MCs, but that their stats outside of the charge make them glorified Defender Guardians when not charging. A simple proposition is to make the spears power weapons permanently with the strength bonus on the charge.

1)Thank you for echoing what I said earlier as to the problems with these units. I sincerely appreciate your helping to keep the discussion focused.

2)I like you assessment of the Hawks for either roll but believe that if you lean towards anti-meq the weapon strength needs to remain at 3. I really like your idea of making them flexible enough to be good at both, but how about having the Exarch dictate the units weapon profiles by making the weapons reconfiguarable for each battle. Here is what I would want for the weapon profiles:
Lasblaster - 18" S3 AP5 Assault 3, Pinning(Exarch chosen weapon for unit)
Sunblaster - 18" S4 AP3 Assault 1, (Exarch chosen weapon for unit)
Hawk's Talon - Becomes the name for the Exarchs power sword and it counts as S6 when assaulting but is models strength during all other HtH.

3)Interesting idea for the grenade pack. Do you think this might be getting a little close to infringing upon the Tau's territory? Just a concern, thats all. Also, are you advocating that they loose the Haywire grenades?

4)Spiders, I like the concept of rending but am unsure if where to set strength values.

5)Absolutely agree with giving them the ability to assault after deepstrike, but will have to be balanced with unit changes.

6) As far as the Shining spears go, I'm leaning towards the Plasma/Star Lance idea. Range 6" S6 AP 1 Assault 1, Lance. Make them into vehicle and terminator hunters and equip their bikes with Shuriken cannons. Or, You could give each bike an integrated short ranger version of the Bright lance and call it the star lance.

Gorechild wrote:This is how I see it.
In 40k you can draw out 3 or 4 vague groups of units/armies : MEQ Infantry, GEQ Infantry, Vehicles/MC. (yes I know I'm being VERY loose with these groupings) To kill MEQ's you need AP2-3 or massed fire. GEQ's need lots of massed fire or templates. Vehicles/MC's need a few high strength low AP attacks/shots.
There are 3 FA aspects, Hawks, Spears and Spiders, each of which could be used for fighting one of these 3 groups. I don't know which out of hawks and spiders would be most easily adapted to fight GEQ's or MEQ's though.
I'm leaning towards Hawks for killing marines. Mahtamori's idea for changing star/sun rifle's would pretty much sort that issue, then grenade packs ect can be tweaked to suit.
Spiders could have S3/4 Assault 3 AP5 and exarch's could get an assault small blast weapon maybe with the same monofilament wire rule as the night spinner.
I've already said my idea to fix shining spears, but i'll tweak it now following what others have said. Scout USR, Can assault 12", S6 on the charge (exarch S8), can attack rear armour of all vehicle's (even walkers) in assault. Opinions?

As I am reading through I am drifting away from soley labling the Swooping Hawks and Warp Spiders as pure anti-MEQ or anti-GEQ units and looking more at their possible synergies and fluff concepts.

Currently,
1) I like Mahtamori's idea about having the Hawks adjustable in focus. I have suggested a posible tweek that I'm sure that we will be discussing. Over all making them an adjustable to mission good but not great unit that has a spotter function would make them viable.

2) I am liking a mix of yours Mahtamori's and my ideas on the Warp spiders. Looking at the Spiders I am beginning to think that the second jump should be more of a desperation move as opposed to something that is a part of the battle plan. So far the best combination of ideas is to make the death spinner a blast weapon, give it an entangle rule, give the Spiders a reasonable version of Web of Skulls, and to rework their Seepstrike and jump generators. Will Suggest the full unit concepts when not trying to plat catch up.

3) Now Shining Spears, as I previously suggested, can be looked at as an Anti-TEQ/Anti-vehicle unit but adding a timing element that the whole army might benefit from wouldn't hurt. I have an idea about "A Hold for the Charge" rule where the Spears come in on a specific turn named by the player. They won't roll for reserves, they just come in on the specified turn but maybe have it affect other reserves or limit it in some way for balance.

Mahtamori wrote:If we place the FA's down in a somewhat comfortable position, although I admit that these changes are far reaching, we could have:

Spiders: Anti-GEQ. Template weapon, S6 Ap-, unit hit is in difficult (and dangerous?) terrain next time it moves. (Remove or reduce second teleport danger since now they need to land closer to enemy?). Cost increase?
Hawks: Anti-MEQ. Change Lasblasters to plasma Star Rifles. 24" S4 Ap3 Assault 1.
Shining Spears: Alpha-strike (anti light vehicle, MC, or super heavy infantry). Point of discussion.

@ Gorechild: I was just curious if you thought about upping their shooting phase movement entirely, or if it was exclusively the charge. I don't personally think placement, or area-of-effect, is an issue for them, it's more the fact that it's a very expensive unit of flying space marines you've got out there if they are charged or if they stick around for second round of combat.
Now, the laser lances have a shooting attack which has an oddly high value on AP considering that in close combat they are ignore-armour. What if Laser Lances shooting attack was AP2, Star Lance shooting attack was S8 AP2, and the melee attack had the lancing property as well?

Regarding Spiders. Surprise Assault need to be changed regardless. What if it granted an additional attack on charge and had the unit count as having plasma grenades? Alternatively, what if Surprise Assault was changed to something like Warp Crawler where the unit would either have a more reliable second warp (say roll 3, pick highest 2) or suffer perils only on snake eyes or similar?
As for the weapon itself, it will force massive amounts of damage to horde armies, easily upping the number of hits by more than 3 times from the current incarnation, if we add on a swamp effect similar to the Nightspinner... they suddenly give a huge punch. Massive punch. Even downgrading the weapons to normal flamer properties, you still have a really fast, slightly heavy, and very elusive troop popping around on the table dropping template madness. A minimum squad with exarch will drop 6 templates... that's enough to decimate MEQ and heavier.
While I like this prospect, how many points would they be? Having people fill 3 FA slots with all spiders regardless of army is not the intention, either.

1)Agree with Warp Spider Tarpit concept but disagree with making second jump safer. I feel that if anything the second jump should be even more dangerous in order to make it a desperation move but to compensate for this the spiders could gain the ability to teleport out of HtH in their next turn and if they are in base to base they can roll initiavie to see if they bring any models with them into the warp. As to the weapon? It depends upon what is the final over concept of the spiders.

2)About Swooping Hawks, I liked your earlier idea of them being flexible. I posted a suggested tweak of making the exarch giving the ability to reconfigure the weapons before the battle. At deployment you would pick between the two profiles. I think this with some form of spotter/overwatch function could work nicely.

3) Your last suggestion on the shining Spears hits upon my earlier suggestion. I think that just a simple weapon profile tweak and rule that allows for exact timing on entry from reserve would fix them.

Mahtamori wrote:
The Spider exarch is a tiny bit like the Swooping Hawk exarch from 3rd edition: you're capable of kitting him like half a CC monster, since he can get two PW (the actual model will look crap if you don't give him these). Back in 3rd edition, Swooping Hawks had the Web of Skulls (basically, each attack that hit = one more attack until you don't score more hits), which on a high WS model was silly.
No, I don't think spiders should be lethal in CC, unless you give the exarch an exarch power to do so, preferably and conveniently called Surprise Assault - but in this case it shouldn't be a main source of attack, but a means to clean a dying squad up. Let Shining Spears, Banshees, and Scorpions be the CCers. In fact, the Scorpions are capable of infiltrating with the correct exarch, so they should be able to do the anti-horde melee tango (or just dump them somewhere appropriate with a serpent).

How does this look for a Deathspinner profile:
Flame template; Strength 3; Armour Piercing -; Assault 1. A unit hit with the Deathspinner is treated like being in difficult and dangerous terrain the next time they move.

This cuts it's anti-vehicle power down drastically, makes the unit in general a harassment unit, and also gives GEQ a bad, but survivable, time. In numbers, the chance to kill one GEQ is 0,333 + 0,166 and the chance to kill one smurf is 0,111 + 0,166. I'm writing it as two chances since the second chance is independent from the actual attack - i.e. more deathspinners will not increase the number of casualties from dangerous terrain.
Big question is, though: dangerous terrain or only difficult terrain?

I'm not sure if I agree about the Spiders not being good in cc. I think it would be ok for them to be good at both shooting and assault but drop their unit strength down to reflect losing warriors to the warp. Maybe make them like this:
Unit:3-6 models
Weapon: S 6 AP- Heavy 1?, Blast, Entangle*
Other equipment: Web of skulls(Every close combat to hit roll of 4+(5+?) causes an additional hit.)
Special rule: Warp generators convey hit and run. If the Warp Spiders are in base to base contact, each spider may attempt to take one enemy model with them into the warp. This is done by rolling an initiative test for each model.

crazypsyko666 wrote:First of all, Hawks need to be able to JSJ. I don't see them being anything more than shooting units.

I strongly disagree with giving the Hawks JSJ. It tresspasses to much upon the Tau's niche.

Gorechild wrote:You don't want hawks or spiders to be any good in assault. In fact, I think them sucking in assault would be a good thing. Being able to drop a load of plates on an enemy then assault them would remove the need for banshees and scorpions.
I reckon a spider/scorpion or banshee/hawk combo would be standard for fighting horde or MEQ respectively. Spiders could bog down a unit to allow scorpions to clear out the remaining men whilst the spiders bog down surrounding units to prevent the scorp's being tar pitted. Hawks would fly in, shoot, fall back and allow the banshee's to do what they do best. this way the 2 units work in harmony with one another and (despite not relying entirely on one another) make a powerful combo.

1)I disagree with the assessment about niether squad being good in close combat. I think it is ok for them to be good at both but unable to do both in the same turn.

2)I very much agree with making the units work in harmony. They should be super-effective when used as part of a very expensive combination of units.


I will recap and consolidate the ideas in my next post.

What do you guys think so far?

I will admit I am much more in favor of what is printed out since a long time past in our codices: aspect warriors are specialized units. I do think the option of assault should be there for spiders and hawks, but I think it's better off as a mop-up move - cleanse a unit which succeeded it's LD check from shooting, or tie up a lesser unit which absolutely must not interfere with another portion of the army.
I don't think it should be part of the standard procedure to get a shooty aspect into melee.

As for the warp-accident, there's 6 chances out of 36, i.e. 1 in 6 chance of losing a member of the squad. That's basically translated to that the second jump will always land in dangerous terrain. For a unit which cost 22 a pop, that's pretty dangerous considering they almost have to do it in order to get work as a harassment troop - especially if they get a template instead of 12" weapon since it puts them 5" closer to the enemy.
I'm curious to see how spiders far if their main ability was simply spreading dangerous terrain around. Tactical weapon rather than one of death and destruction.

Self-luminous paint grenades - tossing ideas out, and that one was mostly for the synergy discussion.

Hay-wire grenades - Swooping hawks are currently dedicated anti-GEQ. The grenades gives them all the versatility they need in a universe where everyone is mechanized. Their current problem is the fact that they either die horribly if they pursue GEQ who are outside transports or that their weapons are ineffective. Maybe JSJ is Tau, but holo-projectors aren't! Bring forth the disco-tech!
That said, the Swooping Hawk concept would go better hand-in-hand with hand-to-hand weapons and specialization (flying scorpions light), but they are too far gone down the shooty lane to do that now.

I do tend to ramble...

Just so I can clear this up in my mind, are we leaning towards normal warp spiders having blast weapons? or just the exarch's?

Although I know Hawks aren't anti MEQ at the moment I think that changing them to MEQ killers would be the only reliable way to stop any overlap between the roles of spiders and hawks occuring.

Here's my suggestion for Warp Spiders, I'll show what i think would be best and then anyone else can adapt it, change it, add to it, scrap it, whatever so we can get a general consensus on what were looking for. Copy my suggestion and put any alterations in bold.

Unit size: 3-6 models
Points: 22 points per model

BS- 4 WS- 3 S- 3 T- 4 A- 1 I- 4 Ld- 9 Sv- 3+

Warp pack: Allows the unit to move as Jump infantry. In addition, the unit may move 2D6" in the assault phase. If a double is rolled on the 2D6 the unit suffered D3 casualties and count as having landed in dangerous terrain.

Weapon: S3 Ap- Assault, Small Blast, Rending
Exarch Weapon: S4 Ap 5 Assault 3 Small Blast, Rending, Web of skulls.

Web of skulls: Any unit hit counts as being in difficult and dangerous terrain the next time they move


I sort of mashed as many of the ideas as I could into one. the point's are just a guess, im rubbish at finding a accurate value. I've tried to keep it so that they aren't intended to assault.

Make the web of skulls a power weapon in CC and I would take that to the field every time.

My ony concern is that they are slightly too expensive, perhaps 18 points each?

S_P

Well all seems to be a bit quiet in here so i'll try and keep things rolling.

Swooping Hawks

Unit size 5-10
Points: 18 per model

BS4 WS3 S3 T3 A1 I5 Ld9 Sv4+

Wings: allows unit to deep strike, unit counts as jump infantry.

Grenade packs: when a unit of swooping hawks enters the field by deep strike they may drop D3 S3 AP3 small blasts within 12" of where they intend to deep strike. These attacks are resolved before you roll scatter for the deep striking unit.

Star Rifle - 24" S4 AP3 Assault 1
Sun Rifle - 24" S6 AP2 Assault 2 (exarch weapon)


Weapon profiles stolen from Mahtamori's post, everything else is mine so feel free to rip it appart for suggestions

Haywire grenades and at worse hitting on a 4+ on vehicles (w exarch ability) puts Swooping hawks in an interesting role to my mind as being different then Spiders already. The problem is cost - arguably, assault marine squads of 5 cost with a vet sgt cost less than 5 swooping hawks without an exarch. I think they have a role with the template drop, S3 AP5 and haywire grenades. My change would be lower their cost to the 15 to 18 range and change the template drop to be -
1. Anywhere on board on the turn arriving from deep strike.
2. Any unit they move over during a turn. (Like ork deffkopta big bombz)

I do like the spider weapons turning into blast or template weapons with the same rules as the new death spinners. (Rending, dangerous terrain etc)

Hawks fill the role of anti-hoard with the weapons they have and have an additional role of anti-tank with their haywire grenades.
Spiders with the weapon changes are less anti-tank but do have a role in slowing down an opponent for the benefit of the rest of the eldar.
While they would both effectively take care of hoards, the choice is slow down or haywire grenades. Reducing Hawk cost and keeping spiders at or near same cost also presents some choices to the eldar play where both can be excellent choices.

As far as Shining Spears - while on-the-charge massed S6 attacks sounds nice - squad size of 5 has little or no survival. Increase the squad max size and reduce the cost. They are nice but not 35 points a piece nice. Maybe down to 20 or 25 each then the exarch additions. The other idea of keeping them power weapons (though at S3 instead of S6 in non-charge rounds) is another good idea.

Hey Guys, Sorry that it has taken so long. I started to post something about a 9days ago but the interwebz and a dodgy connection ate the post. I have been busy with other projects but now have time to post some ideas. Hopefully we will all come to a consensus on a good direction for these units and will move on to other units.

Also please note that these are still very rough concepts with the wording of the rules still needing refinement and pointing on weapons is all just out of the hat and in need correction.

I'm going to start with the Shining Spears first, because we all seem closest to being in agreement on them.

First thing change their names. Yes, Lances are a form of spear but it just doesn't work as a unit descriptor. I've been thinking of something with Lancers like Star Lancers or Sun Lancers but calling them Knights would also work. Hmmm, The Spectral Lancers or Sidhe Riders. I'll leave the names alone for now, but I ask you to think upon the idea.


Shining Spears WS 5 BS 4 S 3 T3(4) W 1 A 2(1) I 5 Ld 9 Sv 3+
Spears Exarch WS 6 BS 4 S 3 T3(4) W 1 A 3(2) I 6 Ld 9 Sv 3+

Unit Size: 3-5 Shining Spears
Unit Type: Jetbikes
Equipment: Eldar Jetbikes, Twin-linked Shuriken Catapults, Plasma Grenades, Star Lance
Special Rules: Hit and Run, Skilled Riders

One of the Shining Spears may be upgraded to an Exarch for +25 pts and comes with the "Hold For the Charge" special ability(Maybe tie this in with/as an Autarch ability?). The Exarch may exchange his Jetbikes Shuriken Catapults for a Shuriken Cannon for +10 points and may exchange his Star Lance for a Sun Lance for +15 points.

Hold for the Charge-The unit may be held in reserve until 5th Turn without having to take its reserve rolls and may be called in from reserve without a reserve roll from 2nd-5th turn.

Star Lance(Jetbike only)- The Star Lance is a power weapon that uses the Jetbikes momentum to double the models strength when being used to assault into combat, however it is so unwieldy that it drops the models base attack characteristic by -1. In subsequent rounds of close combat, or if the equipped model is assaulted, the Star Lance is treated as a power weapon that uses the wielders normal strength value. The Star lance may also discharge a short-ranged highly focused plasma burst, but if used as a ranged weapon the unit will not get the +1 bonus attack when assaulting.
The Star Lance has the following Ranged weapon Profile: Range 6" S 6 AP 1 Assault 1, Lance

Sun Lance-The Sun Lance is a Star Lance and follows all of the same rules except that it has S 8 in all cases and rolls an extra D6 for Armor Penetration.

Now for something more difficult, here are some Ideas for the Swooping Hawks:

Swooping Hawk- WS 4 BS 5 S 3 T 3 W 1 A 2 I 5 Ld 9 Sv 4+
Hawks Exarch- WS 4 BS 6 S 3 T 3 W 1 A 3 I 6 Ld 9 Sv 4+

Unit Size: 5-10 Swooping Hawks
Unit Type: Jet-Packs*
Equipment: Swooping Hawk Wings, Hawk Helms, Raptor Grenades, Hay-Wire Grenades, Lasblaster
Special Rules: Skilled Flyers, Fleet

One of the Swooping Hawks may be upgraded to an Exarch for +25 Points and comes with Baharroths Gift and the Aerial Mastery special ability. The Exarch may exchange his Las-Blaster with a Scatter Blaster for + 5 Points or purchase a Raptors Beak for +10 Points.
Hawk Helm- The Optics within this helm give the wearer greatly enhanced day vision that allows the model to more effectively spot and target their enemies. The result of this is that enemy models will suffer a -1 reduction to their cover saves on any wounds caused by models equipped with the Hawk Helms. This ability stacks with the Talon Grenades.

Hay-wire Grenades- Stay the same for now.

Lasblasters-Range 18" S 3 AP 6 Assault 2

Swooping Hawk Wings- These follow all of the rules for Jet-packs except that they allow the model to travel up to 12” in the movement phase.

Raptor Grenades- Like a hawk going for the eyes, Raptor Grenades are designed to blind and hinder the enemy while helping to find a particular enemy’s location on the battlefield. Dispersing a thick brightly coloured aerosol adhesive which covers and sticks to everything it touches, these grenades are used in a precisely timed aerial kick maneuver just as the unit pulls up to land. Raptor Grenades may be used on any single enemy unit within 6” of where the Swooping Hawks end their movement phase. To determine the effects of the grenades and if they landed on the indicated enemy unit, a D6 and apply the following results:
On a roll of a 1 or 2 nothing happens as the grenades miss.
On a roll of 3+ the indicated unit will suffer a -1 penalty to any Cover Saves they are called upon to take.
On a roll of 5+ the indicated unit will additionally suffer a -1 penalty to their BS and Initiative.
These effects will last until the end of the opposing players following turn.


Aerial Mastery- The Exarch uses his experience and leadership to guide his unit through the most difficult and dangerous of maneuvers. The effects of his leading the unit are that they may make an assault move on the same turn that they deep strike and will be able to hit Mobile Walkers and Vehicles moving faster than combat speed with their grenades on a 4+.

Baharroths Gift-A satchel full of explosives, this is a one use per game item that the Exarch drops on the enemy. Baharroths Gift is a Blast weapon that scatters D6 and is used with the following profile:
Range 12” S 6 AP 4 Assault 1, Large Blast, Pinning

Hawk Talons- These are a set of Lightening Claws used by the Swooping Hawk Exarch.

Scatter Blaster-Range 18” S 3 AP 6 Assault 4, Pinning


And Finally the Warp Spiders:

Warp Spider WS 5 BS 4 S 3 T 3 W 1 A 2 I 5 Ld 9 Sv 3+
Exarch Spider WS 6 BS 4 S 3 T 3 W 1 A 3 I 6 Ld 9 Sv 3+

Unit Size: 3- Warp Spiders
Unit Type: Jump-Infantry
Equipment: Warp Spider Jump Generators, Death Spinner, Web of Skulls, Plasma grenades
Special Rules: Infiltrate, Hit and Run

One of the Warp Spiders may be upgraded to an Exarch for +25 Points and comes with the “Withdraw to the Web” special ability. The Warp Spider Exarch may exchange his Web of Skulls with a Spiders Bite for +10 points and upgrade his Death Spinner to a Death Weaver for +10 Points.

Death Spinner-This weapon extrudes and launches into the air clouds of razor sharp monomolecular edged strands. These strands drift down creating a web that entangles, contracts around and forces the target unit to spend their next turn cutting their way through the webbing.
Range 12” S 4 AP - Assault 1, Blast, Entangle*
*Entangle-Any model hit by a Death Spinner will make all movements in their next turn as if they are in both Difficult and Dangerous terrain.

Death Weaver-This is an upgrade weapon available to the Warp Spiders Exarch. The Death Weaver is a Death Spinner with the following profile:
Range 12” S 6 AP - Assault 1, Twin-linked Blast, Entangle*
*Entangle-Any model hit by a Death Spinner will make all movements in their next turn as if they are in both Difficult and Dangerous terrain.

Spiders Bite-This is the name given to the two swords fitted to the Warp Spider Exarchs forearms.
The Spiders Bite are twin power weapons that inject a cocktail of corrosives and poison. They confer the +1A bonus for two close combat weapons and will always wound on a 4+.

Warp Spider Jump Generators-These operate by making micro-jumps through the warp. The Warp Spider Jump Generators have the same 12” movement as Jump-Packs, but may choose to make an additional jump during the assault phase. Multiple jumps in the same player turn are dangerous, if a second jump is attempted in the same turn then the player will nominate a direction ,roll 2d6 for the distance of the Jump and place the models at the point indicated. Any models landing in impassable terrain will be automatically destroyed and if a double is rolled then one of the squad is sucked into the warp with the player determining which model. If the second jump is made while in close combat then the unit will use the rules for Hit and Run to determine distance traveled but any doubles rolled will still result in a model being sucked into the warp.

Web of Skulls- This close combat weapon is a type of rope dart, known as a Meteor Hammer. It uses a rope made from rounded and woven monofilament Death Spinner strands. These ropes are incredibly strong yet supple and will have two weighted Wraithbone Skulls attached to the ends. The skulls store and release energy from the ambient Jump Generator field. When used, the Web of Skulls will add +1 Strength to the models close combat attacks, may be used to either take a +1 bonus attack or to apply -1A penalty to opponents attacks.

Into the Web-The Exarch is able to use the Warp Spiders Jump Generators optional assault move to guide his unit back into the web way to hold as reserves for a single turn. If doing this when the unit is using the Hit and Run rule, the Warp Spiders may take a single enemy model with them providing that the Exarch was in base contact with the model.
(Wording in last sentence may need tweaking to Exarch takes a single non- vehicle model with him)




Oh yeah, had an idea about redirecting the codex more towards a variety of builds and HQ’s, Here they are:

Aspect Warriors are limited to one per army unless the Avatar is taken as an HQ.

Phoenix Lords lift the 1/per army restriction on their chosen aspect and when joined to one of their aspect units it will become scoring for the duration that the Phoenix Lord remains with them.



Just some ideas, let me know what you think.

Over all, I like those fast attack suggestions, though I see you've only given them one exarch ability with that ability not being an option (though I generally don't see why chosing an Exarch without giving him an ability, really)

I assume that the bulky lances are there so that you can choose to use normal attacks instead? What if Lances were just one charge attack at very high strength, and subsequent turns you'd use normal close combat weapons - similar to medieval lances which you'd tend to break on the charge?
Hold for the Charge - or possibly make it a minor ability which allow them to charge the turn they enter from deployment, regardless of deployment method - couple this with an ability that allow them to deep strike and we've got a portable nuke.

I've got a different, and more modest, idea for the Swooping Hawks; add a close combat weapon and shuriken pistol, hawk grenades changed to be used on the charge (instead of on deep strike), every charge, and also have them count as assault grenades. Makes them anti-GEQ ranged/melee hybrids for destroying heavy weapons teams, removing snipers, and keeping forests generally clean of mon-keigh/Tau trash.
This coupled with new plastic models, of course. Those wings are horrible to get to stick to the otherwise pretty good metal models.

I really agree that Spiders should have the entangle rules, for dual purposes; it suits the Eldar to harass and control, and it also gives them a good role putting real threat on melee-centric armies since Eldar (being slightly more shooty) can't use range so much due to short-ranged weaponry.
Death Spinner: Is that 2 small blasts using barrage rules, or is that 1 small blast that's twin-linked?

Also, here's a theory for the next codex: Shuriken weapons will remain with their current stat-line but will gain rending.

@ focused- I think into the web needs changing. it would be a little OP if you could deep strike next to the nightbringer assault him, pull him off the board and instantly 1/4 of a necron army is gone. It would need limitations against independent characters and MC's at least. Good idea but woud need restricting to be fair.

I like the death spinner/weaver + spiders bite, thats pretty much the effect I was hoping for. I dont however like spiders being A2, they will steal some of the CC ability away from scorps.

Spears seem okay, not what I was thinking really, but I suppose this allows them to act as terminator hunters.

Hawks are an odd one, i think them being a general all round unit with no particular focus makes them hard to define. with that in mind a supporting roll would make sence. The raptor grenades do this I suppose but somthing about it doesnt quite seem right to me.

@Gorechild: He's working on all aspect warriors being veterans, so Scorpions will have A2 as well, equating to 5 attacks on charge. This, of course, will lead to a price-hike for all aspect warriors whom are melee-focused.

I understand that, but would it not make sence to improve different stats depending on what aspect it is? 2 attacks base on Dark reapers would be useless and just result in a higher point cost If assault based units had base 2 attacks it would make complete sence, but doing it accross the entire army seems a little wasteful in certain area's, wouldnt you agree?

I'd actually rather put +1A on specific aspects if at all (Scorps and Banshees). Only unit I'd put it on is Warlocks, and then limit the size of Warlock council to between 3 and 5 - although I like the old Ulthwé council "your seer council is HOW large exactly?"

I'd say at least Scorps and Banshee's should have A2. I see where you're coming from as far as locks go as well. 3 or 2A for exarch's depending on aspect.

Problems I see with those fast attack choices:

The shining spears are actually pretty good. Their biggest problems are the fact that they are, in the end, 35 point MEQs. Retaining their power weapons helps them out tremendously in the 2nd round of combat, but their fragility is still a problem. I don't know how to address that.

The swooping hawks - I think you've missed the mark on these the most. I see a unit which denies a blanket 4+ cover save to enemy GEQ units, turning a large horde of guardsmen into... well, guardsmen again. However, you've actually nerfed the lasblaster, which, after to the shuriken catapult in guardian hands, is currently already the worst weapon in the book. I feel like the grenades are overcomplicated, as well. I wouldn't take swooping hawks if I could take your warp spiders. Neither will kill a large unit of guardsmen (which most foot guard units are).

As your hawks/spiders stand now, they suffer from the same problem they currently do. What the hawks can do, the spiders do better. They are tougher, faster, and their weapons are just better. Especially with the reduction of the lasblaster to R18". On that note of weapons - do we really want to be resolving 10 or 11 small blast attacks every shooting phase? I'd be willing to bet the reason the spinner is assault 2 in the current codex is that the designers tried blast and found it easier to just go with assault 2. The spiders are just as fast, or faster, than the hawks, they are tougher, their weapons are better, and they have better special rules (is that an assassinate-special-character rule i see?).

I'm also not sold on the aspect-specific statlines. I like the simplicity of the same-across-all-aspects lines, but I can also see the argument for BS4/WS5 combat aspects and 5/4 shooty aspects, with better exarchs. I'm on the fence on that. All aspects start at A2 I5, for sure, with no price increase for that part. (I mean, really, if reapers are A2 I5, is anyone really gonna care when they assault them that they have to weather 10 S3 attacks? It makes a 35 points (currently) model as potent as two or three guardsmen in CC - no big deal).

My thoughts for hawks/spiders.

Hawks - if we're going to specialize them as GEQ/vehicle harassers, lets specialize them. S3 AP5 R30" Assault 2 Lasblasters. Jetpack with a 12" move is good - JSJ in the assault phase and high movement in the movement phase.
General Special rules:
Fleet
Masters of the Skies: Cover saves may not be taken against wounds caused by the swooping hawk squad.
Swooping Hawk Wings: The Swooping Hawk Wings make the unit type: jetpack, and confer a permanent 4+ cover save. (avoids heavy-bolter bait at all times)
Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack: Each swooping hawk is equipped with the following grenade types: krak (s6),plasma,defensive,haywire (haywire are 2-4 glance, 5+ pen)

Exarch (standard exarch upg price, whatever it turns out to be):
The Exarch confers two special powers to the squad while alive:
Aerial Assault: While deepstriking, the swooping hawk unit may nominate a single enemy unit. The swooping hawk unit fights a standard round of close combat against the unit, at the time of deepstriking, with the following stipulations. Vehicles, including walkers, are hit on rear armor, and the target unit may only retaliate if it passes an initiative check at a -2 penalty (this makes a I4 unit fight back 1/3 of the time). The enemy unit nominated may be anywhere on the table, regardless of where the hawks actually arrive, or if they arrive at all, from deepstrike.
Intercept: The swooping hawk unit never requires worse than a 4+ to hit any vehicle - even a walker.
(No more skyleap, of course)

The exarch may exchange lasblaster for:
sunrifle (S3 AP5 Assault 6 R30), 10 pts,
scatter laser (unit type: jetpack, I'm pretty sure (not 100%) confers relentless) 20 pts,
Executioner, (as banshee entry), 15 pts.

Warp Spiders:
As I said above, I like the new spinner rule for difficult terrain, I think it adds a nice dimension to the eldar army, and especially spiders and monofilament weapons. That being said, I think that a the deathspinner being a blast weapon isn't good for flow-of-play, as resolving 10 blast attacks in a shooting phase slows things down considerably. Template weapons aren't much better, and also have the added problem of perhaps adding redundancy with hawks. If it is a S4/5/6 template, and you can hit 4 or so guardsmen with each template, theres a very good reason to take spiders over hawks, as a S4/5/6 template is good against MEQ or GEQ, considering the amount of wounds that can be stacked up. All that adds up to this - I think that the deathspinner should stay a generic shooting weapon with a special rule or two.

Warp spiders:
I like them as anti MEQ FA troops. We don't want to encroach on hawks in terms of anti-GEQ, or anti-tank. This means we have to cap the amount of wounds they can potentially do. As it stands now, my suggested hawks have a maximum of 24 S3 shots at 30". I think that giving the spiders 20 shots at 12 inches is a decent balance, especially if we change the quality of the shots. So,
Deathspinner: S4 AP - R12" Assault 2 Rending, monofilament.
WJG: Jump infantry. 3d6 discard highest in assault phase - any double confers a diff. terrain test on a single model of the eldar player's choosing (this makes the diff terrain test more likely, but it makes it a diff terrain test and not a wound, so i think it basically evens out)
General Special Rules:
Hit and Run: As normal.
Tanglefoot Grenades: Close combat attacks made by a unit armed with tanglefoot grenades count as being made with monofilament weapons, in addition to any other special effects of the unit's weapons.
Monofilament weapons: (this would really be in the general-race special rules): A unit which suffers a hit from a monofilament weapon spends the next player turn (or, the player turn following the conclusion of the player turn in which the hit was incurred) entwined in a web of monofilament. All movement made by the unit for any reason during the next player turn counts as difficult and dangerous terrain.

Exarch:
The exarch is equipped with dual deathspinners, and also treats his deathspinners as close combat weapons, giving him +1A for two identical special close combat weapons, rending, and S4.
May exchange his deathspinner for:
Crystalline Spider Launcher: A heavy version of the deathspinner, and a revered weapon of the Warp Spider - this weapon launches a cloud of monofilament wire, laced with the tiny crystalline spiders that defend the eldar webway and are the namesake of the spider aspect. Models hit by this weapon find their nervous system (or, in the case of necrons, their core programming) assaulted by the tiny spiders, their attacks manifesting as ghostly visions, debilitating pain, and the accompanying sheer terror of an enemy they cannot fight. Profile: S4 -, rending, template. After placing the template, roll for wounding and saves as normal. Any surviving models then contend with the small swarm of spiders invading their body - any remaining models hit must then pass a leadership test, or suffer a single additional wound, with no saves of any kind allowed. (+20 points)
or
Twin powerblades - these count as matches special weapons, and are power weapons, and confer +1 S. (+5 pts)

Exarch powers:
Webway Assault:When arriving from standard reserve, the warp spider squad may treat any board edge which is not specifically referred to in the mission rules as "belonging" to the eldar's opponent as "the eldar player's table edge". When Deepstriking, do not roll for scatter.
Warp Dodge: The entire squad gets a 5+ invulnerable save (cosmetic, really, but nice to have).

Mahtamori wrote:I assume that the bulky lances are there so that you can choose to use normal attacks instead? What if Lances were just one charge attack at very high strength, and subsequent turns you'd use normal close combat weapons - similar to medieval lances which you'd tend to break on the charge?
Hold for the Charge - or possibly make it a minor ability which allow them to charge the turn they enter from deployment, regardless of deployment method - couple this with an ability that allow them to deep strike and we've got a portable nuke.

I've got a different, and more modest, idea for the Swooping Hawks; add a close combat weapon and shuriken pistol, hawk grenades changed to be used on the charge (instead of on deep strike), every charge, and also have them count as assault grenades. Makes them anti-GEQ ranged/melee hybrids for destroying heavy weapons teams, removing snipers, and keeping forests generally clean of mon-keigh/Tau trash.
This coupled with new plastic models, of course. Those wings are horrible to get to stick to the otherwise pretty good metal models.

I really agree that Spiders should have the entangle rules, for dual purposes; it suits the Eldar to harass and control, and it also gives them a good role putting real threat on melee-centric armies since Eldar (being slightly more shooty) can't use range so much due to short-ranged weaponry.
Death Spinner: Is that 2 small blasts using barrage rules, or is that 1 small blast that's twin-linked?

Also, here's a theory for the next codex: Shuriken weapons will remain with their current stat-line but will gain rending.

1)I don't want the Shining Spears pulling a Highlander when it comes time for the next assault and ifn't think the Jetbikes would look right carrying multiple Lances.

As to Hold for the Charge, I like it as it stands. Points might need adjusting. To me The Shining Spears are good as I've proposed them except for the name.

2)I originally thought about the Hawks as aerial grenadiers but realized that with the Spiders moving to blast weapons that one of them would need to be more precise and support oriented. I also dont like the current fluff of the grenade packs being on the legs. If the weapon is going to figure prominently then it needs to be on the model.

Now if I set the Death Spinners as Templates then the Hawks could have the grenade blast attacks but the strength/blast marker size would have to vary according to unit strength or would have to move to individual per model attacks that ifeel would be OTT.

And Yes, plastic models with better/more feathery wings.

3)Death Spinner is Assault 1, Blast while the Death Weaver is assault 1, Blast, Twin-linked(Will be represented by the current exarch double deathspitter model)

Gorechild wrote:@ focused- I think into the web needs changing. it would be a little OP if you could deep strike next to the nightbringer assault him, pull him off the board and instantly 1/4 of a necron army is gone. It would need limitations against independent characters and MC's at least. Good idea but woud need restricting to be fair.

I like the death spinner/weaver + spiders bite, thats pretty much the effect I was hoping for. I dont however like spiders being A2, they will steal some of the CC ability away from scorps.

Spears seem okay, not what I was thinking really, but I suppose this allows them to act as terminator hunters.

Hawks are an odd one, i think them being a general all round unit with no particular focus makes them hard to define. with that in mind a supporting roll would make sence. The raptor grenades do this I suppose but somthing about it doesnt quite seem right to me.

1) I agree, but wanted to put the "Into the Web" rule out, as written, to give people the concept of how far this rule could be taken. I want to hear a few more specific ideas on it before I change it. I wouldn't mind the "Into the Web" doing a bit of damage on the way out to the beogger stuff. Somethinh like it causes an automatic wound to mc and glancing hit to vehicles(This represents part of the vehicle being teleported away, Maybe?)

2)If you notice, I have the Spiders as an assault Aspect but with limited number of models. I did this to the Shining Spears also. I did this because I see the Autarch as a fill-in Pheonix lord for them and want them as supporting units. Currently, I have desigened the Spiders to be used right next to the Striking Scorpions or banshee's as a force multiplying unit and the Hawks will help the Ranged aspects.

3)About the Spears, Something about Elvish Knights charging with spears makes me think of a MC killing and Termie fighting unit.

4)The Hawks and to a lesser extent the Spiders still need work. Am thinking of making the Warp Spider Death Spinners and Death Weavers into Template weapons. This would leave the Falcons open to be come the Aerial bombadiers but I want to make sure that the Hawks still provide a force multiplying effect fot the Shooting units.(This will allow for the Farseer to be refocused and given new abilities.

Mahtamori wrote:@Gorechild: He's working on all aspect warriors being veterans, so Scorpions will have A2 as well, equating to 5 attacks on charge. This, of course, will lead to a price-hike for all aspect warriors whom are melee-focused.

It should not be to much of a price hike and some of the weapons will be changed to balance this out.

Gorechild wrote:I understand that, but would it not make sence to improve different stats depending on what aspect it is? 2 attacks base on Dark reapers would be useless and just result in a higher point cost If assault based units had base 2 attacks it would make complete sence, but doing it accross the entire army seems a little wasteful in certain area's, wouldnt you agree?

I don't like bumping the HtH on the ranged aspects, but there is only 3 base model Stats that affects ranged combat while there are about 7 that affect Close combat. You can only boost BS so much.
HHmmm, the reason for my original stat change was to vary the aspects. Maybe I got stuck in methodology and didn't carry the Stat changes enough. I'll go back and think on it some more. Thanks, You gave me an idea.

Mahtamori wrote:I'd actually rather put +1A on specific aspects if at all (Scorps and Banshees). Only unit I'd put it on is Warlocks, and then limit the size of Warlock council to between 3 and 5 - although I like the old Ulthwé council "your seer council is HOW large exactly?"

I want to get away from the warlocks as the Uber unit. I want them good but not to the point where people don't take other HQ choices. I want Farseers to shine less in HtH and more in Psychic ability.

Gorechild wrote:I'd say at least Scorps and Banshee's should have A2. I see where you're coming from as far as locks go as well. 3 or 2A for exarch's depending on aspect.

I agree with this over all except boosting warlocks. I will probably edit the Stat lines in the next day or so.

Gwyidion wrote:Problems I see with those fast attack choices:

The shining spears are actually pretty good. Their biggest problems are the fact that they are, in the end, 35 point MEQs. Retaining their power weapons helps them out tremendously in the 2nd round of combat, but their fragility is still a problem. I don't know how to address that.

The swooping hawks - I think you've missed the mark on these the most. I see a unit which denies a blanket 4+ cover save to enemy GEQ units, turning a large horde of guardsmen into... well, guardsmen again. However, you've actually nerfed the lasblaster, which, after to the shuriken catapult in guardian hands, is currently already the worst weapon in the book. I feel like the grenades are overcomplicated, as well. I wouldn't take swooping hawks if I could take your warp spiders. Neither will kill a large unit of guardsmen (which most foot guard units are).

As your hawks/spiders stand now, they suffer from the same problem they currently do. What the hawks can do, the spiders do better. They are tougher, faster, and their weapons are just better. Especially with the reduction of the lasblaster to R18". On that note of weapons - do we really want to be resolving 10 or 11 small blast attacks every shooting phase? I'd be willing to bet the reason the spinner is assault 2 in the current codex is that the designers tried blast and found it easier to just go with assault 2. The spiders are just as fast, or faster, than the hawks, they are tougher, their weapons are better, and they have better special rules (is that an assassinate-special-character rule i see?).

I'm also not sold on the aspect-specific statlines. I like the simplicity of the same-across-all-aspects lines, but I can also see the argument for BS4/WS5 combat aspects and 5/4 shooty aspects, with better exarchs. I'm on the fence on that. All aspects start at A2 I5, for sure, with no price increase for that part. (I mean, really, if reapers are A2 I5, is anyone really gonna care when they assault them that they have to weather 10 S3 attacks? It makes a 35 points (currently) model as potent as two or three guardsmen in CC - no big deal).

1)I think the Spears are dead on with the "Hold for the Charge" rule. Their job is to make precision timed strikes. With the ability to hold them off of the board until needed they will be plenty durable.

2)The reason for the change to the Lasblaster is because I made the Hawks into an uber Jet-Pack unit. You will find that they are better at taking out GEQ units than before because of the coversave reduction. I went back to 3rd edition on the Lasblasters AP because I wanted to re-establish the Laser family of weapons in the Eldar Army.

3)I disagree about both being the same. I will adress the points in this paragraph one at a time:
a) The Hawks provide a synergy to the ranged aspects while the spiders are designed to synergy to the close combat aspects.
b) Lasblaster has the same effective range as before because of them now being Jet-Packs. I know it seems a nerf but my experience with Tau has shown that it isn't.
c) Take another look, I made the Spiders into a smaller unit to represent the danger of their Aspect. There will only be a max of 6 Blasts in the standard Warp Spiders unit.
d) The Spiders are actually about the same or even slower than the Hawks are. The Hawks can move a guaranteed 18" plus a run roll while still grenading the unit. The Spiders Move 12" and 2d6 more with losing a model on any double rolled. Your not gonna want to abuse that second move when there are only 6 models in the unit.
e)The assassinate rule was posted with a note of intended revision and as is will most likely cost the unit a model to use.

4)I am very much into the aspect specific statlines. I understand that this is a personal preference on my part but I feel that it makes sense and will fit the Eldars theme of overly specialized units having to work together in a ballet of motion.

I am going to address your proposed ideas in a seperate post because I want to give them the attention they deserve.

@focusedfire: You misunderstand me regarding the lances. It's the medieval lances that break, the WH40k ones simply aren't useful in close combat, or aren't allowed to charge up for proper effect. When you get out of the charge, you draw hand-to-hand weapons, possibly attaching a pistol to the squad profile as well, and fight with those. Here's the/an idea:
Lance weapons: Strength 10 and ignore armour on charge, but only one attack. If not charging or choosing not to use them, you get basic attack with CCW+Pistol.

The reason I feel Hold for the Charge is a bit... lacking, is that you've removed the second exarch power option. Granted, you've slapped the basic USRs on to the squad regardless of Exarch, but having two options feels... nice.

My basic thought behind the Hawks would be something along the lines of S4 AP5 shooting attack per SH model which happens on the charge every time they charge. This IS less powerful than the current incarnation, but larger squads of hawks at lower cost per model could prove interesting from a gameplay perspective. I don't have the codex with me, but say a squad size of up to 10 models at a cost of 18 each. Weapons are: lasblaster, CCW, pistol, haywire, hawk grenade (S4 AP5 attack on charge, assault grenade). Statline otherwise the same as in codex.
Primary target for them would have to be Conscripts, Firewarriors, Guardians, DE Warriors, Gretchins, smaller squads of boys, SM scouts and that kind - essentially stuff that you might have a problem sending Scorpions against or wouldn't send your other elites on.
Big wall of text, sorry.

--

Into the Web - there's a plethora of restrictions and possible saves you can set. The model has to be the same size or small than the Exarch, the model has to be within 2" of the Exarch, the Exarch has to hit the target, the target must roll below it's initiative as a save (a 6 will always fail).
Since command characters tend to have significantly better statline, possibly even better than Eldar exarchs, you'd be looking at a "2+" save. Additionally, how is the model chosen? Does the exarch choose, or is the casualty allocated as a normal melee wound would be? I mean, a particularly heroic or stupid soldier might tackle the struggling pair and take the warp hit instead of his commander...

However, I must proclaim my own view of the Spiders as a harass unit whose primary weapon is the second jump, not the death spinner.

--

If Banshees gain one extra attack, they gain significantly more killing power (+50% outside a charge, +33% on a charge). If a Striking Scorpion gain an extra attack, they killing power is not increased as much (+33% outside a charge, +25% on a charge). If Swooping Hawks gain an extra attack, the killing power is hardly touched in their current form (they usually don't charge).

--

Regarding Warlocks. I think it needs to be determined what, exactly, they are:
Are they Farseer bodyguards? Are they psychers on their own right? Are they Guardian sergeants?

I dislike their status as deathstar as well, Eldar should be about combined forces. Consider my earlier proposal regarding psychic powers:
* Defensive Warlock powers become squad upgrades for all infantry.
* Offensive Warlock powers are expanded and given to Warlocks only - require LD check?
* Farseer powers are changed to support. Mind War moved to Warlocks, Eldritch Storm protects against deep strikers.

Offensive Warlock powers would be, roughly: Flamer, Mind War sniper, and some form of melee power - force weapon? Naturally, if Warlocks had offensive powers and drew from them for performance rather than martial prowess, the extra attack shouldn't be there.

[quote=focusedfire4)I am very much into the aspect specific statlines. I understand that this is a personal preference on my part but I feel that it makes sense and will fit the Eldars theme of overly specialized units having to work together in a ballet of motion.

Or, maybe, "simply": Any model which takes an unsaved wound from the Exarch must make an initiative check. If the check fails, the model is removed into the warp, lost forever. Monstrous Creatures will rather lose D3 wounds per unsaved wound, instead. Models immune to the effects of D-Cannons, such as the Nightbringer, are also immune to Into the Warp.
When attacking a vehicle, the Exarch will score a glancing hit on a penetration roll of 3+.

Mahtamori wrote:Offensive Warlock powers would be, roughly: Flamer, Mind War sniper, and some form of melee power - force weapon? Naturally, if Warlocks had offensive powers and drew from them for performance rather than martial prowess, the extra attack shouldn't be there.

How about a blast from the past?

Executioner: if unengaged at the beginning of the Assault Phase, the Warlock may assault a single unit within 12", resolving combat normally. After combat has resolved (including Ld tests and sweeping advances), return the Warlock to his starting position - even if the model was removed as a casualty - and the enemy unit may consolidate.

That's very devilish, essentially using himself as a projectile. Decidedly less harmful than the bolt an Librarian get for free (two attacks which probably hit at 4+ and wound on 2+, but with the quirk of that a group of Warlocks there's a chance of the Warlocks causing the enemy to break morale).

Or, maybe, "simply": Any model which takes an unsaved wound from the Exarch must make an initiative check. If the check fails, the model is removed into the warp, lost forever. Monstrous Creatures or models immune to instant death will rather lose D3 wounds per unsaved wound, instead. Models immune to the effects of D-Cannons, such as the Nightbringer, are also immune to Into the Warp.

I think changing to D3 wounds for people immune to instant death is fairer. I know I'd be pretty pissed if a 40 point exarch mannaged to just pull my abbadon or thrakka off the board.

I very much like Gavin's idea about warlocks though.

The original fluff described the power as the Warlock (or Eldar Psyker, iirc) creating a psychic duplicate of himself to charge into combat.

I wouldn't think it too powerful if it was ranged out to 18", especially for warlocks attached to Guardian squads. My concept for the power is less the damage that it actually inflicts (which would be minimal unless done by a seer council) but more the chance that the warlock inflicts a wound or two resulting in a broken squad. This could help keep units away from Guardians.

The main problem I see is that it's an alternative to the Singing Spear but it doesn't completely make the Spear redundant if it's 12" range, allowing the Warlock to toss the spear in the shooting phase and then again in the assault phase if he doesn't want to get up close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another issue would be the warlock "dying" in the combat with no affect to the model. Maybe if the Warlock suffers a wound as a result of the combat, roll vs. Ld. If passed, return the model to it's starting location. If failed, remove the warlock from play.

Another issue would be the warlock "dying" in the combat with no affect to the model. Maybe if the Warlock suffers a wound as a result of the combat, roll vs. Ld. If passed, return the model to it's starting location. If failed, remove the warlock from play.

creating a psychic duplicate of himself to charge into combat.

It would make no sence if the warlock died when he himself wasnt even in combat. I reckon there should be some penalty if this happens, but being removed when your're not actually in combat wouldnt make sence.
Maybe they will be unable to use the attack again in subsequent turns?

It has the inherent drawback that you resolve combat. There are three outcomes, besides the Warlocks doing damage; the Warlock doubles flee and the enemy pursue, the combat doubles die or goes *poof*and the enemy makes a consolidation move, and the enemy flee and the Warlocks pursue.

All these are situational how you want it to turn out. Psying the enemy spess mahrens to keep them away only to have them pursue into charging range next turn may not be to your advantage.
Additionally, the power has the inherent weakness that a single Warlock in a Guardian unit isn't very potent and would need a stat boost to make the power worthwhile. A stat boost on a jet-council, however, with all 5 Warlocks having this power may be a nuke with no drawback!

I think it'd rather make a nice Farseer power, since those guys aren't so common.

@Mahtamori - that would mean the power wouldnt be able to be used to keep units away from guardians, which is what I thought was its main aim. To stop it being OP for seer councils it could be worded "a single warlock in a unit" so that you couldnt magically have 10 warlocks doing it at once

I'll see if I can dig up the old Dark Millenium card for the power and determine if there was any drawback to using it.

Gorechild wrote:@Mahtamori - that would mean the power wouldnt be able to be used to keep units away from guardians, which is what I thought was its main aim. To stop it being OP for seer councils it could be worded "a single warlock in a unit" so that you couldnt magically have 10 warlocks doing it at once

Well, if protecting Guardians is the primary concern, then maybe False Vision "projecting psychically induced copies of the Warlock and the squad he is with, enemies attempting to charge at the Warlock's squad must roll as if charging into difficult terrain. Should there be actual difficult terrain, they roll one less dice to determine the distance they charge."

I know, it's not at all as amazing or cool. If it doesn't make sense, feel free to change name to Psychic Maelstrom or something similar and describe it as if the warlock conjures violent wind torrents around the squad or alters terrain to become uncertain and uneven or something to the effect.

I wouldnt say its the primary concern, its just trying to find a way to enable warlocks to perform one of their jobs (leading guardian units) effectivly without making them so powerful that when you have 5+ of them in a seer council you have a crazy death star.

How about:
"If a Warlock is with a unit of guardians, he may choose to make a "False Vision" attack instead of shooting. False Vision- The Warlock projects a psychic copy of himself within the enemy's ranks. An aditional Warlock model can be placed in base to base with any enemy model within 12" of the original. The enemy unit reacts as if assaulted by the warlock, but no attacks can be made until the opposing players assault phase. Knowing that the warlock is a mere illusion, any eldar units in range may shoot at the enemy unit as if they were not in combat."

Might be a bit OP but I think the idea is cool. Thoughts?

Gorechild wrote:
Just a thought of somthing we might want to explore aswell when talking about these aspects, Pheonix Lords. If we discuss each individual lord with their aspect we can incorporate them to make them far more useful and less of an afterthough (which is the impression I get from the current codex).

I started to cover this at the end of my proposed Fast Attack changes. Tell me if you think that it is a step in the right direction.

I had an idea about redirecting the codex more towards a variety of builds and HQ’s, Here they are:
Aspect Warriors are limited to one per army unless the Avatar is taken as an HQ.
Phoenix Lords lift the 1/per army restriction on their chosen aspect and when joined to one of their aspect units it will become scoring for the duration that the Phoenix Lord remains with them.

Gwyidion wrote:
Hawks - if we're going to specialize them as GEQ/vehicle harassers, lets specialize them. S3 AP5 R30" Assault 2 Lasblasters. Jetpack with a 12" move is good - JSJ in the assault phase and high movement in the movement phase.
General Special rules:
Fleet
Masters of the Skies: Cover saves may not be taken against wounds caused by the swooping hawk squad.
Swooping Hawk Wings: The Swooping Hawk Wings make the unit type: jetpack, and confer a permanent 4+ cover save. (avoids heavy-bolter bait at all times)
Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack: Each swooping hawk is equipped with the following grenade types: krak (s6),plasma,defensive,haywire (haywire are 2-4 glance, 5+ pen)

Exarch (standard exarch upg price, whatever it turns out to be):
The Exarch confers two special powers to the squad while alive:
Aerial Assault: While deepstriking, the swooping hawk unit may nominate a single enemy unit. The swooping hawk unit fights a standard round of close combat against the unit, at the time of deepstriking, with the following stipulations. Vehicles, including walkers, are hit on rear armor, and the target unit may only retaliate if it passes an initiative check at a -2 penalty (this makes a I4 unit fight back 1/3 of the time). The enemy unit nominated may be anywhere on the table, regardless of where the hawks actually arrive, or if they arrive at all, from deepstrike.
Intercept: The swooping hawk unit never requires worse than a 4+ to hit any vehicle - even a walker.
(No more skyleap, of course)

The exarch may exchange lasblaster for:
sunrifle (S3 AP5 Assault 6 R30), 10 pts,
scatter laser (unit type: jetpack, I'm pretty sure (not 100%) confers relentless) 20 pts,
Executioner, (as banshee entry), 15 pts.

My primary problems with the Hawks as you've proposed them is that they are too good. You have made them a stand alone unit where I am trying to make them into a force multiplier unit that frees the warlocks from bieng an everything deathstar unit to being a Psyker/force multiplying unit. Just the 30" range and no cover being added to the new JSJ are by themselves a bit OP, but then you give them an assault that is impossible to defend against and it doesn't even lock the Hawks to the location of the assault. Now, I get were you are coming from, this "is" how a bird of prey hunts and it is one of the reasons why balancing the Hawks is difficult. BTW, I too pondered the Scatter Laser for the Hawks and I may go back to it as an option, but right now you are the only one that has mentioned their weapon profiles as a problem.

Gwyidion wrote:Warp Spiders:
As I said above, I like the new spinner rule for difficult terrain, I think it adds a nice dimension to the eldar army, and especially spiders and monofilament weapons. That being said, I think that a the deathspinner being a blast weapon isn't good for flow-of-play, as resolving 10 blast attacks in a shooting phase slows things down considerably. Template weapons aren't much better, and also have the added problem of perhaps adding redundancy with hawks. If it is a S4/5/6 template, and you can hit 4 or so guardsmen with each template, theres a very good reason to take spiders over hawks, as a S4/5/6 template is good against MEQ or GEQ, considering the amount of wounds that can be stacked up. All that adds up to this - I think that the deathspinner should stay a generic shooting weapon with a special rule or two.

Warp spiders:
I like them as anti MEQ FA troops. We don't want to encroach on hawks in terms of anti-GEQ, or anti-tank. This means we have to cap the amount of wounds they can potentially do. As it stands now, my suggested hawks have a maximum of 24 S3 shots at 30". I think that giving the spiders 20 shots at 12 inches is a decent balance, especially if we change the quality of the shots. So,
Deathspinner: S4 AP - R12" Assault 2 Rending, monofilament.
WJG: Jump infantry. 3d6 discard highest in assault phase - any double confers a diff. terrain test on a single model of the eldar player's choosing (this makes the diff terrain test more likely, but it makes it a diff terrain test and not a wound, so i think it basically evens out)
General Special Rules:
Hit and Run: As normal.
Tanglefoot Grenades: Close combat attacks made by a unit armed with tanglefoot grenades count as being made with monofilament weapons, in addition to any other special effects of the unit's weapons.
Monofilament weapons: (this would really be in the general-race special rules): A unit which suffers a hit from a monofilament weapon spends the next player turn (or, the player turn following the conclusion of the player turn in which the hit was incurred) entwined in a web of monofilament. All movement made by the unit for any reason during the next player turn counts as difficult and dangerous terrain.

Exarch:
The exarch is equipped with dual deathspinners, and also treats his deathspinners as close combat weapons, giving him +1A for two identical special close combat weapons, rending, and S4.
May exchange his deathspinner for:
Crystalline Spider Launcher: A heavy version of the deathspinner, and a revered weapon of the Warp Spider - this weapon launches a cloud of monofilament wire, laced with the tiny crystalline spiders that defend the eldar webway and are the namesake of the spider aspect. Models hit by this weapon find their nervous system (or, in the case of necrons, their core programming) assaulted by the tiny spiders, their attacks manifesting as ghostly visions, debilitating pain, and the accompanying sheer terror of an enemy they cannot fight. Profile: S4 -, rending, template. After placing the template, roll for wounding and saves as normal. Any surviving models then contend with the small swarm of spiders invading their body - any remaining models hit must then pass a leadership test, or suffer a single additional wound, with no saves of any kind allowed. (+20 points)
or
Twin powerblades - these count as matches special weapons, and are power weapons, and confer +1 S. (+5 pts)

Exarch powers:
Webway Assault:When arriving from standard reserve, the warp spider squad may treat any board edge which is not specifically referred to in the mission rules as "belonging" to the eldar's opponent as "the eldar player's table edge". When Deepstriking, do not roll for scatter.
Warp Dodge: The entire squad gets a 5+ invulnerable save (cosmetic, really, but nice to have).

I disagree about the role of the Warp Spiders and I have already given the Anti-MEQ roll to the Shining Spears(Really needs another name guys). I see them as a supporting unit to the assault aspects. Sure, I have them good at HtH but I've limited their numbers to make the second hop a much larger risk.

The Crystalline Launcher is a cool idea but IMO if any race is going to get a nano-tech weapon it will be the necrons first with the Tau a close second.

Your death Spinner profile is very good, but is a weapon for a squad of 10 warp spiders. Basically it doen't fit my perception of the warp spiders because I want the unit to have lower numbers to indicate the danger of their aspect.

As far as the Warp dodge goes I have no problem with it other than it is very similar to the wraith power abd the fact that the Eldar seem to eschew the use of inv saves for the most part. HHMmm, I need to research the why of this,...I bet it has to do with the necrons and their weapons ignoring inv saves.

Mahtamori wrote: @focusedfire: You misunderstand me regarding the lances. It's the medieval lances that break, the WH40k ones simply aren't useful in close combat, or aren't allowed to charge up for proper effect. When you get out of the charge, you draw hand-to-hand weapons, possibly attaching a pistol to the squad profile as well, and fight with those. Here's the/an idea:
Lance weapons: Strength 10 and ignore armour on charge, but only one attack. If not charging or choosing not to use them, you get basic attack with CCW+Pistol.

The reason I feel Hold for the Charge is a bit... lacking, is that you've removed the second exarch power option. Granted, you've slapped the basic USRs on to the squad regardless of Exarch, but having two options feels... nice.

Where I understand your position on the Lances it gets into a piloting the bike in combat with no hands at some point. Their would have to be new accompanying fluff that explains this. Maybe link the jetbike to their Spirit Stones? (HHmmm, This gives me some Ideas on how to keep the warlock attack numbers down and cool modeling Ideas.

BTW, I understand about the prepackaged Exarchs, I am reworking the units right now and the Exarchs wil probably gain a choice or an additional power that compliments the first.

Mahtamori wrote:My basic thought behind the Hawks would be something along the lines of S4 AP5 shooting attack per SH model which happens on the charge every time they charge. This IS less powerful than the current incarnation, but larger squads of hawks at lower cost per model could prove interesting from a gameplay perspective. I don't have the codex with me, but say a squad size of up to 10 models at a cost of 18 each. Weapons are: lasblaster, CCW, pistol, haywire, hawk grenade (S4 AP5 attack on charge, assault grenade). Statline otherwise the same as in codex.
Primary target for them would have to be Conscripts, Firewarriors, Guardians, DE Warriors, Gretchins, smaller squads of boys, SM scouts and that kind - essentially stuff that you might have a problem sending Scorpions against or wouldn't send your other elites on.
Big wall of text, sorry.

I am reworking the Hawks. I feel that I got close on everything but the grenades. Because I an likely to make the Death Spinners Templates I may bring the Blast part of the Hawks grenades back while still keeping the simpler and much cooler Talon grenades name.

As far as the Hawks purpose. I want them to provide a similar boost to the shooting aspects/units as the spiders do for the assault based units. Maybe make them:
Aerial Spotters- Any enemy unit within 6" of the Swooping Hawks during the Shooting Phase will suffer a -1 to their cover saves.
What do you think?

BTW, No problem about wall of text, You have spced you reply out in a way that is very easy to work with. Also, look at the size of this reply.

Mahtamori wrote:Into the Web - there's a plethora of restrictions and possible saves you can set. The model has to be the same size or small than the Exarch, the model has to be within 2" of the Exarch, the Exarch has to hit the target, the target must roll below it's initiative as a save (a 6 will always fail).
Since command characters tend to have significantly better statline, possibly even better than Eldar exarchs, you'd be looking at a "2+" save. Additionally, how is the model chosen? Does the exarch choose, or is the casualty allocated as a normal melee wound would be? I mean, a particularly heroic or stupid soldier might tackle the struggling pair and take the warp hit instead of his commander...

However, I must proclaim my own view of the Spiders as a harass unit whose primary weapon is the second jump, not the death spinner.

I am compiling all of your suggestions on the Into the Web rule(Thanks guys ) and will post an updated version of the units and their rules soon.

As to the Purpose of the Spiders, yeah I get where your coming from. I want them as units that soften an enemy unit up before the Aspects go to work so that the glass hammer should only have to strike once.

Mahtamori wrote:If Banshees gain one extra attack, they gain significantly more killing power (+50% outside a charge, +33% on a charge). If a Striking Scorpion gain an extra attack, they killing power is not increased as much (+33% outside a charge, +25% on a charge). If Swooping Hawks gain an extra attack, the killing power is hardly touched in their current form (they usually don't charge).

So don't sweat the profile as much? Problem is that my OCD has kicked in. Am thinking of giving Shooting aspects an additonal ability to make up for the lower assault stats.

Mahtamori wrote:Regarding Warlocks. I think it needs to be determined what, exactly, they are:
Are they Farseer bodyguards? Are they psychers on their own right? Are they Guardian sergeants?

I dislike their status as deathstar as well, Eldar should be about combined forces. Consider my earlier proposal regarding psychic powers:
* Defensive Warlock powers become squad upgrades for all infantry.
* Offensive Warlock powers are expanded and given to Warlocks only - require LD check?
* Farseer powers are changed to support. Mind War moved to Warlocks, Eldritch Storm protects against deep strikers.

Offensive Warlock powers would be, roughly: Flamer, Mind War sniper, and some form of melee power - force weapon? Naturally, if Warlocks had offensive powers and drew from them for performance rather than martial prowess, the extra attack shouldn't be there.

I have a question/problem concerning your proposed Mind War Sniper rule. Where does that leave the rangers? Just seems to tread upon their turf.
Hey, what about the idea of connecting to the spirit stones?
Make the MindWar ability a Close Combat thing where their weapons become Direswords? Keep the Attacks down to a base of one, WS at 4 and maybe have them suffer a -1 to their initiative to use the power.

What do you guys think?

Gavin Thorne wrote:How about a blast from the past?

Executioner: if unengaged at the beginning of the Assault Phase, the Warlock may assault a single unit within 12", resolving combat normally. After combat has resolved (including Ld tests and sweeping advances), return the Warlock to his starting position - even if the model was removed as a casualty - and the enemy unit may consolidate.

I like this but have a tweak to put on the last reply to the idea. Look v.

Gorechild wrote:How about:
"If a Warlock is with a unit of guardians, he may choose to make a "False Vision" attack instead of shooting. False Vision- The Warlock projects a psychic copy of himself within the enemy's ranks. An aditional Warlock model can be placed in base to base with any enemy model within 12" of the original. The enemy unit reacts as if assaulted by the warlock, but no attacks can be made until the opposing players assault phase. Knowing that the warlock is a mere illusion, any eldar units in range may shoot at the enemy unit as if they were not in combat."

Might be a bit OP but I think the idea is cool. Thoughts?

How about: False Vision- The Warlock projects a psychic copy of himself within the enemy's ranks. An aditional Warlock model can be placed in base to base with any enemy model within 12" of the original. The enemy unit reacts as if assaulted by the warlock, but no attacks are made and the Psychic copy is removed after the defenders react phase.

focusedfire wrote:

Gorechild wrote:How about:
"If a Warlock is with a unit of guardians, he may choose to make a "False Vision" attack instead of shooting. False Vision- The Warlock projects a psychic copy of himself within the enemy's ranks. An aditional Warlock model can be placed in base to base with any enemy model within 12" of the original. The enemy unit reacts as if assaulted by the warlock, but no attacks can be made until the opposing players assault phase. Knowing that the warlock is a mere illusion, any eldar units in range may shoot at the enemy unit as if they were not in combat."

Might be a bit OP but I think the idea is cool. Thoughts?

How about: False Vision- The Warlock projects a psychic copy of himself within the enemy's ranks. An aditional Warlock model can be placed in base to base with any enemy model within 12" of the original. The enemy unit reacts as if assaulted by the warlock, but no attacks are made and the Psychic copy is removed after the defenders react phase.

*drools over the thought of doing this followed by 5 hits of destructor* We're getting to where I was meaning to be all along, but I don't think its worded too well. How about:
"False Vision- The Warlock projects a psychic copy of himself within the enemy's ranks. An aditional Warlock model can be placed in base to base with any enemy model within 12" of the original. The enemy unit instantly has to move as if assaulted by the warlock, but the psychic image fades before any attacks can be made. No consolidation movement can be made as the bewildered unit tries to understand what happened."


@focused- about trying to diversify the HQ slot- To increase the use of pheonix lords I'd suggest they make units of their aspect scoring and 4+ Inv save accross the board.
Avatar needs a similar force multiplier to effect the whole army (I'm thinking Eldar version of chapter tactics)
Farseer - extremely powerful psychic buff's to single units (as they are currently)
are we still toying with the idea of a bonesinger hq? - if yes, I think they should buff vehicles (maybe allow an upgrade to increase all tanks except wave serpents to front+side AV 13?
Autarch- Massive flexibility with reserves, allowing deployment from any non-enemy board edge and option to -/+ 1 to all reserve roll's

I dislike any constraints that say what units you can and cant have in your army, so im against the limiting aspect warriors to 1 per army.

Well, Eldar have several downsides at the moment, like
1. Random game length.
2. Skimmer nerfing.
3. Low toughness troops.

ad 1. A Farseer could see the end of a battle in turn 5 to 7. The Eldar player rolls 1D6 and if the outcome is 4+, the game ends. Before this, the Farseer eventually needs to pass a psychic test.

ad 2. Reduce pt costs.

ad 3. If an Autarch is included in an army, one Aspect from the elite or FA section can be taken as troops.

What do you think?

Gorechild wrote:
@focused- about trying to diversify the HQ slot- To increase the use of pheonix lords I'd suggest they make units of their aspect scoring and 4+ Inv save accross the board.
Avatar needs a similar force multiplier to effect the whole army (I'm thinking Eldar version of chapter tactics)
Farseer - extremely powerful psychic buff's to single units (as they are currently)
are we still toying with the idea of a bonesinger hq? - if yes, I think they should buff vehicles (maybe allow an upgrade to increase all tanks except wave serpents to front+side AV 13?
Autarch- Massive flexibility with reserves, allowing deployment from any non-enemy board edge and option to -/+ 1 to all reserve roll's

I dislike any constraints that say what units you can and cant have in your army, so im against the limiting aspect warriors to 1 per army.

I understand not liking constraints, but maybe if you think of it as a move towards more accurately portaying the Eldar numbers. Here:
A)The Eldar are swamped with a varity of specialist warrior aspects yet they are a race that is few in number.
B)Every Craftworld has shrines to the various Aspects with original/founding shrines scattered amoungst the Craftworlds.
C)Due to the scattered nature and different battle histories of the craftworlds, each has armies of differing composition and focus.
D)Only Biel-Tan is known for having plentiful access to all of the Aspects and they are known for the Avatar(court of the young king) as their regular HQ

By linking the level of access to these unique units with the appropriate HQ's a lot of the issues with the HQ's could be corrected. This is just a general idea that could probably be improved to not be so ham-fisted in its approach. So far it is just an idea, but I think that somehow incorporating the concept of the Craftworld Eldar codex through the characters connected to known craftworlds would help diversify the army.

If you have ideas of ways to implement the Craftworld lists in a balanced non-OP way I'm open to suggestions.

wuestenfux wrote:Well, Eldar have several downsides at the moment, like
1. Random game length.
2. Skimmer nerfing.
3. Low toughness troops.

ad 1. A Farseer could see the end of a battle in turn 5 to 7. The Eldar player rolls 1D6 and if the outcome is 4+, the game ends. Before this, the Farseer eventually needs to pass a psychic test.

ad 2. Reduce pt costs.

ad 3. If an Autarch is included in an army, one Aspect from the elite or FA section can be taken as troops.

What do you think?

I like the idea of 1 and 3 but the Farseers and Autarchs already have a problem as being overused. I am trying to find ways that the Eldar can be made into an army that doesn't have large numbers of never used units and the two sections of the FOC that are the worst about unused units are the Eldars HQ and Fast Attack. I've addressed each of the ideas below.

Please keep in mind that all of the following are, IMO:
1)While the ability to possibly counter random game length with a form of a re-roll would be a cool ability, the random length has similarly affected other armies as much if not more so. I believe the Eldar's speed helps them to be the best at late game objective rushes.

2)As far as skimmers go, I don't know if there will be a reduced price or increased ability through Spirit Stones as standard equipment. Really the Wave Serp is priced close when comparing to the new Valk/Vendetta and remembering that it is a dedicated transport as opposed to something that takes up a space on the FOC. I think it might be 5-10 points high at most. Same goes for the Falc/Prism, if anything keep the price the same and boost the BS to 4 flat across the board.

3)I was going to have the Autarch be the Stand-in Phoenix Lord for the two aspects that really don't have one. Apart from that idea I'd rather see the focus be on the Autarchs Tactical ability. It could be where he controls which units come in from reserve or adds +1 Initiative to his unit for the first turn of assault or come other effect

I like the idea of seers actually seeing and killing the variable game turn length, what a cool themey idea that is.

Eldar would be perfect if sucessful psychic hoodings of their powers had to be rerolled, or only suceeded on a 5-6+ regardless of what the hooding wargear/special rule says.



Omg i saw this and had to edit ...

2)As far as skimmers go, I don't know if there will be a reduced price or increased ability through Spirit Stones as standard equipment. Really the Wave Serp is priced close when comparing to the new Valk/Vendetta and remembering that it is a dedicated transport as opposed to something that takes up a space on the FOC. I think it might be 5-10 points high at most. Same goes for the Falc/Prism, if anything keep the price the same and boost the BS to 4 flat across the board.

Are you kidding? a vendetta is like 4x as cost effective as a massively overpriced wave serpent ....

Right, they use to be the big psychic masters right? But then, chaos tzeentch and khorne guys whole armies don't even have psychic defenses these days...

?

kill dem stunties wrote:2)As far as skimmers go, I don't know if there will be a reduced price or increased ability through Spirit Stones as standard equipment. Really the Wave Serp is priced close when comparing to the new Valk/Vendetta and remembering that it is a dedicated transport as opposed to something that takes up a space on the FOC. I think it might be 5-10 points high at most. Same goes for the Falc/Prism, if anything keep the price the same and boost the BS to 4 flat across the board.

Are you kidding? a vendetta is like 4x as cost effective as a massively overpriced wave serpent ....

No, I am not kidding. Compare Type, armour values, then weapons, upgrades, abilities, physical characteristics and cost.

Type: Both are Fast Skimmers...............................................Edge: a draw

Armour Values: Both are F 12 S 12 R 10................................Edge: a draw

Weapons: Valk comes with Two Hell Strike missiles and a muti-las, Wave Serpent comes with tl-shuricats and must select a tl-weapon system weapon............................Edge: Valk

Upgrades: Valk gets basic weapon options to carry more weapons ...The Wave Serp Weapons are TL and the upgrades make it faster and more durable than the Valk........Edge: Wave serp

Abilities: Both are BS 3....Valk comes with Scout, Deep Strike & Grave Chute, tras cap 12....Wave Serpent comes with Energy Prow and Dedicated, trans cap 12 Transport......Edgeraw

Physical Characteristics: Valk huge and only gets Obscure by moving fast...... Wave Serpent is smaller and benefits from terrain...............................................Edge: Wave Serpent

Cost: Valk starts with weapons at 100 points................Similarly equipped Wave Serpents will be 115 points w/ tl weapos systems but minus two krak missiles..............Edge: Valk

Pretty close. A 5-10 point drop on the Wave serpents puts them about right


If your gonna complain about pricing then do so about Fast non-skimmers being too cheap.

Hmm... Let's see. What if...

The Eldar Ideal Doctrine army.
Or "We found a whole bunch of aspect warriors and we can now use them like we did back when we saved the galaxy last time!"

HQ :-
Same as current, but Phoenix Lords need to be addressed.

Troops :-
Banshee (melee anti-MEQ)
Striking Scorpions (melee anti-GEQ)
Dire Avengers (ranged anti-GEQ)
Dark Reapers, now with Relentless (ranged anti-MEQ)
Guardian Jetbikes, now cheaper (objective-ninjas)

Elites :-
Rangers, now a tad cheaper
Wraithlords, now with plastic models and a tad cheaper
Fire Dragons, yeah, they really have to stay here
Guardian Heavy Weapon Squad (3 guardians per heavy weapon, up to 5 heavy weapons. 20 points + weapon)*

Fast Attack :-
Hawks (anti-GEQ)
Warp Spiders (harassers)
Shining Spears (shock troops, anti-MEQ, anti-MC)
Vyper Squadron, now with scout (mobile heavy weapons)

Heavy Support :-
War Walkers, no longer open-topped (slow and lots heavy weapons)
Wraithlords, now with 3 attacks and no longer twin-linked (versatile, but slow)
Falcons, now able to shoot 'em all (fast and durable heavy weapons)
Fire Prism (fire support)
Nightspinner (fast artillery, anti-GEQ, harasser)
Support Weapon Battery, now with improved rules**, reduced cost, and relentless (slow artillery, 15 points + weapon)

Vehicle Upgrades :-
Assault Ramp

Army Special Rules :-
All Eldar are fleet of foot, without exceptions, including walkers and wraiths.
All Eldar vehicles have spirit-linked weapon systems and may fire up to 2 weapons and defensive weapons at cruising speed.

Other Stuff :-
Conceal now grant Stealth and light (6+) cover, meaning 5+ in the open and 2+ inside a bunker.
Eldritch Storm reworked, defensive power, any unit deep striking within 18" of Farseer suffer a mishap, friend or foe, the skies and warp are in turmoil.
Defensive powers are now cast "during the movement phase, but may not be used in the same turn as re-grouping"

* This is still more expensive than War Walkers, whom are "discounted" for being in the appropriate category
** What I mean here is that each Vibro Cannon fires on it's own and the target pointers you draw the line to scatter like barrage artillery, i.e. 3 Vibros give 3D6 S4 hits or 3 glancing, not 1D6 S6 hits or 1 glancing. Shadow Weaver is a large template and follow the same rules as the Nightspinner for entanglement. Entire unit may move and fire. Also, the Warlock may NOT shoot the weapons.

focusedfire wrote:aw

Weapons: Vendetta comes with Two Hell Strike missiles and a muti-las, Wave Serpent comes with tl-shuricats and must select a tl-weapon system weapon............................Edge: Valk

What? a vendetta has 3 twin linked lascannons for 130 pts ..... you dont seem to know what youre talking about. Compare to a predator, that upgrades an autocannon to a twin linked lascannon for 60 pts, or 2 sponsons of las for 45 pts .... I said a vendetta is 4x as cost effective, i didnt say anything about the crappy valk, which is overpriced compared to the vendetta.

so for 145 pts, you'll get 1 tl elder missile launcher on a wave serpent with spirit stones and a shuri catapault, and energy field .... If anything base price of a serpent needs to be cut down to like 60~ pts from 90, and its weapon loadout options need their prices cut in half.

kill dem stunties wrote:

focusedfire wrote:aw

Weapons: Vendetta comes with Two Hell Strike missiles and a muti-las, Wave Serpent comes with tl-shuricats and must select a tl-weapon system weapon............................Edge: Valk

What? a vendetta has 3 twin linked lascannons for 130 pts ..... you dont seem to know what youre talking about. Compare to a predator, that upgrades an autocannon to a twin linked lascannon for 60 pts, or 2 sponsons of las for 45 pts .... I said a vendetta is 4x as cost effective, i didnt say anything about the crappy valk, which is overpriced compared to the vendetta.

so for 145 pts, you'll get 1 tl elder missile launcher on a wave serpent with spirit stones and a shuri catapault, and energy field .... If anything base price of a serpent needs to be cut down to like 60~ pts from 90, and its weapon loadout options need their prices cut in half.

Off Topic:
Wow, Talk about your fan boi wish based thought process.

First, you pick out the only typo when it is appearrant that I focused on the Valk(Thanks I've corrected it)and then miss the point that Valks and wave serps are about 15 points different in price with many of the advantages going to the serp.
As far as your comment about the Valk being crappy, funny most IG guys I know run the Valk because the Vendettas can only fire all three las-cannons when moving 6" or less which makes it slow. The Vendetta Shares a problem with the Falcon iin that while heavily gunned it sacrifices one of its biggest strength to do so.

Now if you do want to make it a vendetta versus wave serp you dont compare the Eml you compare the tl- bright lances. Also your adding the Spirit stones to jack up the price. this is a base naked comparison(something else that was mentioned). So lets look at these two.

Vendetta=3 tl-lascannons @135

Wave serp=TL-BL @ 135

A)Bright Lances are superior to lascannons one on one.
B)Valk gives up mobility to use all three, the wave serpent(Cannot fire all three on deepstrike)
C)Wave serpent has much lower profile (Can take advantage of Cover)
D)Wave Serpt is a dedicated transport. (No mucking about being a giant target half of the first turns)
E)Wave Serp has energy prow.(las cannons are S 8)

Again a 5-10 point difference. Make Spirit stones standard on all eldar vehicles and call it a day. If they give or vehicles a 5-10 point break on top of that I'll be down-right gibby.

As far as the weapon prices go, None of the Armies are receiving much of a break on weapon prices, the savings seem to be in the vehicle base chasis costs. Basic Upgrades being made a standard part of the vehicle has cut costs in some areas as they have raised the points on the other upgrades. With the energy prow accounting for about 15 points of the wave serpents price and a vehicle being a Skimmer seems to increase the price on an increasing curve as the AV goes up, GW probably will set the next wave Sepent at about an 80 point base(Hopefully including spirit stones). Then again, they may make the shuri-cannons Standad equipment and keep the initial buy-in price in the 90 point area.


On-Topic:
@ kill dem stunties-Now if your done complaining about how a top tier army has gotten the shaft and wish to join in with thoughts on how the next codex could be made more versatile please do. But please refrain from the lets slash prices down to IG levels comments.


@Mahtamori- Is your last post in reply to my request for finding a way to link access to Aspect warrior to HQ's or is this just a wish list? If it is a wish list I want to remind you that I asked for no wishlists because they have a tendency to throw the conversation into a chaos of everyone wishlisting as opposed to discussing of what to address and ways of doing so. If it is not a wishlist then can you explain how the Aspects are being limited or tied to HQ's?

Also, is this list what you feel the entire codex should be or just a revisit of Biel-tan in its her day?


@Everyone-At this point I would like to move the conversation towards the Hq's, primarily on the refocusing of the Seer/warlocks and making the Phoenix Lords have a purpose.