Gorechild wrote:You could basically boil it down to the craftworld defining what troops you have.

Ulthwe = Guardian army
Saim Han= Jetbike army
Iyanden= Wraithguard army
Alaitoc= Ranger army
Biel-Tan= Dire Avenger Army

Then if each craftworld could have access to any of the HQ, elites, fast attack and heavy support.

The only problem then is people that play their own craftworld and want a mixture.

*Sigh* All along I have been saying that all armies would have access to all of the HQ's. This is why you could build any army you wanted and with better focus than the current ruleset. ......Now that I think about it though, each known Craftworld should have a named Hero available to only that Type.

Also, I would like for you to do me a favor. Show me build, outside of spamming an Elite unit, that you cannot make with my original proposal. Seriously, I am not being facetious. I believe that my earlier concepts were easier to understand rules wise and you could build any army. I want to know what builds I missed.

Mahtamori wrote:@ focusedfire: Since Ulthwé are supposed to use Guardians and Warlocks extensively, if you feel it is a bit powerful, maybe giving Ulthwé the unique ability to do this? "Ye, we're vanilla, but we've got near infinite range with our farseers" (since farseer powers are supportive in nature, and most of the army is Guardians+Warlocks, you're reach will be significantly better)
The real problem with the Farseers isn't that they are powerful, but rather that they are babysitters as often as not. If they aren't, they are usually in the group that's on the receiving end of the buffs, if they are they are usually far from the action and far from being risked. Granted that Mind's Eye would allow them to sit back in a forest somewhere while the council does the dirtywork for them (by the way, what if the council changed to retinue so you CANT detach them, and keep it small 1-3 so they are more bodyguard than a fighting unit?)
--(snip)--
Or, if we're really creative, we could come up with special rules for each craftworld type so that you only select flavour, rather than army.
Ulthwé - Farseers can use powers through Warlocks
Saim Hann - jet bikes and skimmers re-roll difficult terrain
Biel Tan - Banshees, Scorpions, Storm Guardians gain Furious Charge (or entire army gain it?)
Alaitoc - may infiltrate up to two units which would otherwise not be allowed to
Iyanden - Tough one... wraiths having FNP might be overpowered, wraiths always passing wraithsight strays from the character of the army

Actually, I sort of like the Alaitoc one. Can we have that as a general Eldar special rule?

I don't think having the Farseer using powers through the Warlocks is in and of itself OP. It will depend upon what Psychic powers are available. Whatever they end up being, they need to be organic and not intrusive to game play and it will need to be balanced to prevent the Farseer from becoming the no-brainer HQ. I do think that if done right, Most Eldar armies will only need to use one. Actually, I like the idea of Farseers being limited in someway unless the army is Ulthwe.

As to the differing rules for each craftworld, I am hesitant. If done they need to be set in a standard format that won't have your opponent constantly asking why certain thing or units are not behaving normally. I was thinking of tying such rules that are currently being proposed to the Craft world heros or to the Phoenix Lords.

As to the proposed Alaitoc rule. I can see it being tied to the Craftworld hero who has yet to be invented.

Gorechild wrote:@ Mahtamori- I ment people who make up their own fluff and colour scheme for their army and maybe want a wide variety of different units.
I dont see any problems with calling them by the main craftworld names, if you want to play a custom craftworld that is similar to Saim Han, you just use the Saim Han rules....Plenty of people play Codex: Blood Angel's without using a BA colour scheme, why should it be any different for Eldar?

Exactly, This was my approach all along and my initial proposal, while rough, embraced this concept.

Gorechild wrote:Do you think just confining the Troop choice would bring enough character to each craftworld? That way you wont really restrict army builds but will encourage them to be fluffy. then we could possible give little incentives to use other particular units (but not make them mandatory).

Doing such to only the troop section will do nothing to fix the current Fire Dragon Spamming unless it replaced the dragons with another spammed Aspect. Also it stops being an army wide rule and creates craftworld specific rules that are not built upon an easy to follow standardized format. It also doesm't really capture the manpower shortages that the Eldar are supposed to be facing.

Mahtamori wrote:Hmm, I made a list over how the codex would look like if you moved troop choices around depending on craftworld, but edited it out. Suffice to say, the codex would look odd - cramped to the extreme everywhere except troop choices.

I prefer the format of using HQ's and Special characters to convey troop status to various specific Aspects. When you do it on the craftworld level it makes a jumble of the FOC that would be a nightmare to constantly explain and balance.

Mahtamori wrote:It would be more appropriate, I think, making special rules as above. For unit flavor, you could also attach scoring to select units that aren't troop. Say, Biel-Tan may score with the two melee aspects, Saim Hann may score with Shining Spears (and Swooping Hawks?), Ulthwé may score with any Warlock-attached unit, Iyanden with any Wraiths. Problem is Alaitoc, since their figurehead troop is already troop choice and there aren't a whole lot of non-troop units that's specifically Alaitoc.
A possibility would be that you simply attach a more powerful set of special rules to some types of armies, so Alaitoc may not have extra scoring troops, but they can infiltrate two units extra and may use concealed deployment on any one infiltrator (sword-lord infiltrating at a concealed spot which the enemy doesn't know about could be devastating). Or something similar.

I'd rather these rules were limited down to buyable characters and that a craft world theme was just allows for greater basic access that is still within the FOC. That way you can make your army according to the FOC and then the specialization occurs with the HQ's. When you look at the base cost of most Eldar units, you really are not going to be spamming a bunch of one unit, but if you do then you need to have an HQ that reflects the army. I reaaly fon't want to see Eldrad Leading another Biel-Tan build ever again.

Gorechild wrote:Well all the units would be in the same place in the FOC with the exception of moving Wraithguard from elite to troop. That would leave 5 different troops, 4 Elites, 4-5 Fast attack (depending on what we decide about war walkers) 4-5 Heavy support (considering we move falcons to transports) and 4 HQ's (counting the pheonix lords as 1).

That gives a fair ballance of unit type accross the FOC. Just say you are only allowed to include one type of troop choice in a single army and then you roughly have your craftworlds set out for you. You could then say:
"If your army contains Wraithguard, you may include an additional wraithlord that uses 1 fast attack slot of the FOC".
"If your army contains Jetbikes, The maximum squad size of Shining Spears is increased to (whatever)".
"If your army contains Rangers/pathfinders, 2 units of your choice gain the Infiltrator USR"
"If your army contains Dire Avengers, 2 units of your choice gain the furious charge USR".
"If your army contains Guardians, the range of any farseer power may be measured from the farseer or any warlock in the army"

Does that sound good?

IMO, this might be overly exploitable. You are looking at a 1750 army that would be almost always built like this:

HQ-Farseer w/ Spirit Stones, Doom, Guide, Fortune- 150

Elite- 8 Banshees + WS w/ Shuricannon- 228

Elite- 5 Fire Dragons + WS w/ Shuricannon- 190

Elite- 5 Fire Dragons + WS w/ Shuricannon -190

Troop-Min DA unit- 60 + WS w/ Shuricannon - 160

Troop-Min DA unit- 60 + WS w/ Shuricannon - 160

Troop-Storm Guardians x 11 w/ 2 flamers and Destructorseer- 151

Troop-Min Ranger unit- 90

Troop-Min Ranger unit- 90

HS-Fire Prism- 115

HS-Fire Prism- 115

HS-Wraithlord- Twin Flame, Shuricannon, Sword- 110


The strategy is that the Storms and Lord get infiltrated in and the Storms and Banshees get furious charge

List doesn't look like a problem until you realize that there is not much reason to play any other lists. Basically, the rules are not encouraging caried lists.

@focusedfire- I was agreeing about the HQ's I think they should be available to all craftwords, I was just saying that FA eite and heavy support shouldnt be restricted. As I've been saying since probably page 4 of this thread, I dont think just restricting what units an army can take is the right approach. What you need is to make a list with 3 units of Fire Dragons equally good as a list with 3 units of Quins or Scorpions for example. If its as simpe as raising the points for dragons and improving the abilities of other elites then it will still achieve that. A unit isn't ballanced simply by saying "you can only have 1", if they are too effective for their points, or they are good enough at their job but they are cheap enough to just throw away then somthing clearly isn't right.

Gorechild wrote:@focusedfire- I was agreeing about the HQ's I think they should be available to all craftwords, I was just saying that FA eite and heavy support shouldnt be restricted. As I've been saying since probably page 4 of this thread, I dont think just restricting what units an army can take is the right approach. What you need is to make a list with 3 units of Fire Dragons equally good as a list with 3 units of Quins or Scorpions for example. If its as simpe as raising the points for dragons and improving the abilities of other elites then it will still achieve that. A unit isn't ballanced simply by saying "you can only have 1", if they are too effective for their points, or they are good enough at their job but they are cheap enough to just throw away then somthing clearly isn't right.

The reason that I feel they should be destricted is for fluff and balance reasons. I am not trying to kill the Dragons effectiveness, instead I am trying to kill the spam list being a no brainer. Again, I will go back over the problem with changing the units too much.

A)If you make them too expensive, you then cripple the Eldars ability to handle AV 13-14 by overcosting their primary source for melta weapons. What I am saying is that I don't want the unit ti become unused due to overcosting. Eldar Aspects are supposed to be ferocious and points efficient, but not spammable unless they come from specific craftworlds or have certain Heros calling them to defend shrines and such.

B)If you drastically increase thier cost then the same would have to be shown throughout the army. This means that either the other Aspects also become over costed or the Fusion Guns will become 15-20 points each when purchased for the storm guardians and autarchs. IMO, players would still spam the dragons at 25 pts each, they would complain but still run them at min sized. If GW did such a thing it would drive people away from the army. This is because they can tell when a decision was an arbitrary one that limits a unit through pointing that clearly breaks the mathematical formula for the army. Doing such just rubs people the wrong way.
What I am saying is that the changes have to make sense or people won't play the army.

C)Try to improve the Assault aspects won't do any good unless you make them or some other part of the Army able to consistently crack open a flood of tanks. Making the Assault units able to handle theTanks turns them into MC equivalents that are masters of most trades. Improving other areas of Anti-tank will either do nothing or will kill the Fire Dragons as a viable unit choice. You make Storm Guardians BS 4 and able to take 3 Meltas, most likely you will see storm guardian/fire dragon spam. IMO, it is because 5th ed doesn't have a metagame as much as it has a melta-game.

D)I'm not saying that you can simply only have one because they are too effective. I'm saying that in order to properly reflect the backstory, these units need to be limited to operate with the HQ's and other units for which they were originally designed. Currently we have Eldrad and Ulthwe style Seercouncils being used to lead all of the Armies. You almost never see an Avatar outside of an Iyanden footdar list and Yriel pretty much gets used for anything but Iyanden(If he gets used). The reason for this mish mashing of army types has to do with the half hearted attempt to incorporate the Craftworld codex into the 4th ed codex.
Basicaly not every craftworld has unlimited access to all of the aspects and having a codex that says otherwise is killing the flavor and tactics of the army.

I hope this explains my perspective on what I see as the major problem with the current codex.
You say that you want the freedom to build any list but what happens is that when players are given access to so many units, without restiction to provide balance, they end up creating powerbuild Spam lists that turn the codex into a mono-build. When you have as much variety as the Eldar, there needs to be armybuilding guidelines that encourage the player to build balanced competitive lists that have minimal exploitability.

@Gorechild: I'm fine with bashing for now. I've always thought that the troops did well enough as is in defining a Craftworld (if you wanted to go Alaitoc or Saim-Hann ect) and adding in the Aspect Warriors to even things out and make it more competitive for armies with less-than-great troops. All the while this still allows for some very unique builds of personal craftworlds.

Anywho, it's certainly far from a 'broken' codex.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Gorechild: I'm fine with bashing for now. I've always thought that the troops did well enough as is in defining a Craftworld (if you wanted to go Alaitoc or Saim-Hann ect) and adding in the Aspect Warriors to even things out and make it more competitive for armies with less-than-great troops. All the while this still allows for some very unique builds of personal craftworlds.

Anywho, it's certainly far from a 'broken' codex.

Spoken like someone who doesn't play Eldar.

Seriously, The current codex is so limited and far from the backstory, It would be like you "having" to take grey knights, sisters or a SM HQ and units to make your Vostroyans playable. While the Codex is still competitive it breaks almost every background story to do such.

Now if you are going to stick around and bash on our creative process, I will have to call Shennannigans unless you open a proposed rule thread for the IG so that we can go over to it and return the bashing. It will be more sporting that way.

focusedfire wrote:

Spoken like someone who doesn't play Eldar.

I play Eldar.



...once. Playtesting with my Brothers stuff.

(Although the idea of a Jetbike Saim-Hann army has always appealed to me)

Seriously, The current codex is so limited and far from the backstory, It would be like you "having" to take grey knights, sisters or a SM HQ and units to make your Vostroyans playable. While the Codex is still competitive it breaks almost every background story to do such

.

...How?
Saim-Hann = Bikes + Shining Spears + Whatever the hell you want transported in Wave Serpents/Falcons
Iyanden = Wraithguard + Wraithlord (nothing to laugh at) + Farseers/Warlocks/SpiritSeers and a few choice apsects (No restriction of Vehichles)
Alatoic = Pathfinders (and Dire Avengers) + Anything else you care to mention
Ulthwe = Guardians (okay, fair point) + Farseers adn Warlocks + Perhaps a few choice apsects
Biel Tan = Dire Avengers + Apsect Warriors galore + Anything else

I'm not going to get into the smaller craftworlds, but perhaps you can show me a competitive list that really breaks the backround story of a Craftworld.

Now if you are going to stick around and bash on our creative process, I will have to call Shennannigans unless you open a proposed rule thread for the IG so that we can go over to it and return the bashing. It will be more sporting that way.

That's the thing, I don't really want a new IG codex. I am fairly content as it is. (Keep IG stats the same, make them 4 points a pop)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:

Gorechild wrote:You could basically boil it down to the craftworld defining what troops you have.

Ulthwe = Guardian army
Saim Han= Jetbike army
Iyanden= Wraithguard army
Alaitoc= Ranger army
Biel-Tan= Dire Avenger Army

Then if each craftworld could have access to any of the HQ, elites, fast attack and heavy support.

The only problem then is people that play their own craftworld and want a mixture.

Exactly. Is this a problem now?

*Sigh* All along I have been saying that all armies would have access to all of the HQ's. This is why you could build any army you wanted and with better focus than the current ruleset. ......Now that I think about it though, each known Craftworld should have a named Hero available to only that Type.

Also, I would like for you to do me a favor. Show me build, outside of spamming an Elite unit, that you cannot make with my original proposal. Seriously, I am not being facetious. I believe that my earlier concepts were easier to understand rules wise and you could build any army. I want to know what builds I missed.

Mahtamori wrote:
Alaitoc - may infiltrate up to two units which would otherwise not be allowed to

Actually, I sort of like the Alaitoc one. Can we have that as a general Eldar special rule?

Not too bad. Goes with the whole idea of tricksy eldar.

Emperors Faithful wrote:(Although the idea of a Jetbike Saim-Hann army has always appealed to me)

Thats how it starts. Go ahead, get yourself a Saim Hann army. They are red, fast and would look really good next to your Vostroyans in the display case.(Sibilant sith like voice whispering*- Good, good, give into the feeling.....)

Emperors Faithful wrote:

focusedfire wrote:Seriously, The current codex is so limited and far from the backstory, It would be like you "having" to take grey knights, sisters or a SM HQ and units to make your Vostroyans playable. While the Codex is still competitive it breaks almost every background story to do such

.

How?
Saim-Hann = Bikes + Shining Spears + Whatever the hell you want transported in Wave Serpents/Falcons
Iyanden = Wraithguard + Wraithlord (nothing to laugh at) + Farseers/Warlocks/SpiritSeers and a few choice apsects (No restriction of Vehichles)
Alatoic = Pathfinders (and Dire Avengers) + Anything else you care to mention
Ulthwe = Guardians (okay, fair point) + Farseers adn Warlocks + Perhaps a few choice apsects
Biel Tan = Dire Avengers + Apsect Warriors galore + Anything else


I'm not going to get into the smaller craftworlds, but perhaps you can show me a competitive list that really breaks the backround story of a Craftworld.

1)Any list spamming Fire Dragons that has Eldrad as an HQ.

2)Any list that spams Fire dragons and doesn't have Fuegan as an HQ.

3)Dual Jetseer lists leading armies with no jetbikes.

The list goes on. It may not seem like much to you because they are all in the same book but take a look at the old 1999 Eldar codex and the 2000 codex: craftworld Eldar suppliement and you will begin to get an idea of the problem. The current codex is to eldar players like what it would be like for the Imperium players if GW combined all of the IG, Sisters, Inquisition and an odd SM chapter into one book. The book claims that you can still build your old favorite armies, but the reality of how the units were over costed limits you to being stuck using bastardized builds. Imagine if you had to us an Inquisitor as HQ and 3 units of SMs just to field your Vostroyans effectively. That is how the current codex feels to some of us.

@focused - How exactly would you suggest your idea would be put forward in the codex? I'm having a bit of a brainfart and trying to scan back through to find it isn't working for me

Also, have we come to any vague conclusion on an ary wide rule? fast and few seemed good, are we sticking with just that? I'm really starting to feel like this all needs to be written down in an article or somthing so we can see what we've achieved and where were going

focusedfire wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:(Although the idea of a Jetbike Saim-Hann army has always appealed to me)

Thats how it starts. Go ahead, get yourself a Saim Hann army. They are red, fast and would look really good next to your Vostroyans in the display case.(Sibilant sith like voice whispering*- Good, good, give into the feeling.....)

I've recently been looking at a 2nd Hand DE codex as well. Hmmm, Raider and Scourge Dark Lance Spam...

And Combat Drugs.

DO DRUGS. FIGHT AWESOME.

1)Any list spamming Fire Dragons that has Eldrad as an HQ.
Okay, 1 Fire Dragon Squad in Ulthwe isn't terrible as far as fluff goes.

2)Any list that spams Fire dragons and doesn't have Fuegan as an HQ.
There are two HQ slots. Avatar? Also, you don't need to take Fuegen every army that includes Fire Dragons

3)Dual Jetseer lists leading armies with no jetbikes.
HQ? Meh, this one I admit is a bit WTF.

BTW, would these Fire Dragons be placed in Wave Serpents?

The list goes on. It may not seem like much to you because they are all in the same book but take a look at the old 1999 Eldar codex and the 2000 codex: craftworld Eldar suppliement and you will begin to get an idea of the problem. The current codex is to eldar players like what it would be like for the Imperium players if GW combined all of the IG, Sisters, Inquisition and an odd SM chapter into one book. The book claims that you can still build your old favorite armies, but the reality of how the units were over costed limits you to being stuck using bastardized builds. Imagine if you had to us an Inquisitor as HQ and 3 units of SMs just to field your Vostroyans effectively. That is how the current codex feels to some of us.

Honestly, I think you are being a bit melodramatic here. A better example would be how a 'Combined Inquisition' codex with GK/SoB and Deatwatch combined would feel to SoB or GK players.
And you have to admit that there is a FAR greater difference between IG, SM and Inquisition. They aren't even comparable. Eldar armies on the other hand are very similar and ALL utilise (to some extent) the same units as other Eldar Craftworlds, but they lean towards one style of another. You can still have guardians in Iyaden or Alaitoc, but they ussually rely on Wraithguard or Pathfinders. The only difference is really a paint scheme. But maybe I'm being a bit harsh here.

funny thing I think reading these comments is "In 2030 eldar will have the 5 codexs that they want but Space marines will have all 20 and Imperial guard will have a lot more."

buts thats if we pass 2012 the end of space and time.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Focusedfire said1)Any list spamming Fire Dragons that has Eldrad as an HQ.

Emperors Faithfull replied-Okay, 1 Fire Dragon Squad in Ulthwe isn't terrible as far as fluff goes.


Focusedfire said-2)Any list that spams Fire dragons and doesn't have Fuegan as an HQ.

Emperors Faithfull replied-There are two HQ slots. Avatar? Also, you don't need to take Fuegen every army that includes Fire Dragons


Focusedfire said-3)Dual Jetseer lists leading armies with no jetbikes.

Emperors Faithfull replied-HQ? Meh, this one I admit is a bit WTF.

BTW, would these Fire Dragons be placed in Wave Serpents?

1)One squad isn't bad but three is right out

2)Not everytime fire dragons are taken in limited numbers but when fielded in three strong units, this is where you would see the Phoenix lord leading his Aspect

3)Agreed, It needs to be fixed.
And yes, the FDs are in wave serpents. It still doesn't fit the background.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

focusedfire wrote:The list goes on. It may not seem like much to you because they are all in the same book but take a look at the old 1999 Eldar codex and the 2000 codex: craftworld Eldar suppliement and you will begin to get an idea of the problem. The current codex is to eldar players like what it would be like for the Imperium players if GW combined all of the IG, Sisters, Inquisition and an odd SM chapter into one book. The book claims that you can still build your old favorite armies, but the reality of how the units were over costed limits you to being stuck using bastardized builds. Imagine if you had to us an Inquisitor as HQ and 3 units of SMs just to field your Vostroyans effectively. That is how the current codex feels to some of us.

Honestly, I think you are being a bit melodramatic here. A better example would be how a 'Combined Inquisition' codex with GK/SoB and Deatwatch combined would feel to SoB or GK players.
And you have to admit that there is a FAR greater difference between IG, SM and Inquisition. They aren't even comparable. Eldar armies on the other hand are very similar and ALL utilise (to some extent) the same units as other Eldar Craftworlds, but they lean towards one style of another. You can still have guardians in Iyaden or Alaitoc, but they ussually rely on Wraithguard or Pathfinders. The only difference is really a paint scheme. But maybe I'm being a bit harsh here.

When you look at the old craftworld builds you will notice that the armies had some major differences. Much more than what you are suggesting with the comparison to the combined Inquisition reference. The point was that the various craftworlds did not use the same core units and the stat-lines varied greatly, they were supposed to shake out something like this:

Alaitoc: Scouting Army with Rangers, Pathfinders and War Walkers at its core. Aspect warriors are supposed to be better than normal but limited in number.
Notable average Stats: WS3 BS 4 T3 I4 Save 5+ Shooting range of infantry 36"

Biel-Tan: Assault Army made up of the Avatar and Aspect warriors throughout the army. Fast mobile army made up of specialists.
Notable average Stats: WS4 BS 4 T3 I5 Save 3+ High number of attacks on average than the other armies

Iyanden: Resilience Army that uses Spiritseers, Wraithguard and Wraithlords as it core units. Tough army carrying the most formidable weapons.
Notable average Stats: WS4 BS 4 T6+ I4 Save 3+ Carries wrathcannons

Saim Hann: Speed and mobility base army that uses Jetbikes and Vypers throughout the army. This is the fastest and most mobile army able to be fielded
Notable average Stats: WS3 BS 3 T4 I4 Save 3+ Just a good all around army mounted on Eldar Jetbikes

Ulthwe: HQ-Seer Councils and Eldrad, Troops are Black Guardians and limited access to aspect warriors
Notable average Stats: WS 3-4 BS 3-4 T3 Save 4-5+ Army was full of guardians buffed by the plentiful psykers and was restricted in access to Aspect warriors.

Yes, the armies use the same vehicles but these are from when you rarely saw more than 3-4 vehicles in a non-IG list. Finding a way to bring these craftworlds back while keeping them balanced is what many of the Eldar players would like to see. It doesn't have to be seperate codices, I am fine with one book. However, I am not fine with just one bastardized build. Maybe a better comparison would be that the Eldar recieved a similar treatment as the CSM codex. Yeah, It had a couple of good builds but they don't fit the background and over-time it has boiled down to a bland basic build. The codex is getting to the point of needing an update and we are expressing what we think would be nice to see in the next dex and attempting to theorize as to how it will look when set in the newer format.

If you have any ideas of how the codex will change when set in the 5th ed Army special rule/Herohammer format, I would like to hear them.

@All posters- Please to continue with the discussions while EF and I continue with our discussion.

@ Mahtamori, Gorechild and Gavin, "Could each of you post a full version of what you think the army wide rules should be. I think it would be helpful to see the various full ideas side by side as it were.

Thanks, ff

focusedfire wrote:

2)Not evertime fire dragons are taken in limited numbers but when fielded in three strong units, this is where you would see the Phoenix lord leading his Aspect

Or, it could be a Craftworld that is virbant and 'explosive', a culture that utilises a lot of Fire Dragons.

When you look at the old craftworld builds you will notice that the armies had some major differences. Much more than what you are suggesting with the comparison to the combined Inquisition reference. The point was that the various craftworlds did not use the same core units and the stat-lines varied greatly, they were supposed to shake out something like this:

Wait GK, Inquisitorial and SoB builds aren't considered vastly different?

Alaitoc: Scouting Army with Rangers, Pathfinders and War Walkers at its core. Aspect warriors are supposed to be better than normal but limited in number.
Notable average Stats: WS3 BS 4 T3 I4 Save 5+ Shooting range of infantry 36"
You can do this

Biel-Tan: Assault Army made up of the Avatar and Aspect warriors throughout the army. Fast mobile army made up of specialists.
Notable average Stats: WS4 BS 4 T3 I5 Save 3+ High number of attacks on average than the other armies
You can do this

Iyanden: Resilience Army that uses Spiritseers, Wraithguard and Wraithlords as it core units. Tough army carrying the most formidable weapons.
Notable average Stats: WS4 BS 4 T6+ I4 Save 3+ Carries wrathcannons
You can do this

Saim Hann: Speed and mobility base army that uses Jetbikes and Vypers throughout the army. This is the fastest and most mobile army able to be fielded
Notable average Stats: WS3 BS 3 T4 I4 Save 3+ Just a good all around army mounted on Eldar Jetbikes
You can do this,

Ulthwe: HQ-Seer Councils and Eldrad, Troops are Black Guardians and limited access to aspect warriors
Notable average Stats: WS 3-4 BS 3-4 T3 Save 4-5+ Army was full of guardians buffed by the plentiful psykers and was restricted in access to Aspect warriors.
You can do this

Yes, the armies use the same vehicles but these are from when you rarely saw more than 3-4 vehicles in a non-IG list. Finding a way to bring these craftworlds back while keeping them balanced is what many of the Eldar players would like to see. It doesm't have to be seperate codices, I am fine with one book. However, I am not fine with just one bastardized build. Maybe a btter comparicon would be that the Eldar recieved a similar treatment as the CSM codex. Yeah, It had a couple of good builds but they don't fit the background and over-time it has boiled down to a bland basic build. The codex is getting to the point of needing an update and we are expressing what we think would be nice to see in the next dex and attempting to theorize as to how it will look when set in the newer format.

If you have an ideas of how the codex will change when set in the 5th ed Army special rule/Herohammer format, I would like to hear them.

The current codex allows players to stick to the backround of Craftworlds, but it also allows them to go super competitive if they so wish, and you'll ussually see that Competitive Lists bastardize any codex (Lysander in LR with Termies, but not Imperial Fists. Vulkan in a non-salamander Army ect), you can do this with most armies. Mayhaps it is time that you looked at my sig.

Okay I'll fire away with my army wide rule idea's. The ones I'm going to suggest are just going to be generic. Nothing Craftworld specific yet until we decide on the approach we will take with each one.

(Stolen but added to )
Fast but Few - The natural agility of the Eldar race gives them the ability to launch lightning assaults with small but perfectly coordinated units.
Any unit with this rule gains the Fleet universal special rule. In addition If the unit started the game with the minimum squad size they may add an extra D3" to their result when attempting to run.

I spent ages trying to think of a rule to give a bonus for taking fully sized units, maybe conferring a different USR depending on the units aspect, but couldn't write anything I liked

Emperors Faithful wrote:

focusedfire wrote:

2)Not evertime fire dragons are taken in limited numbers but when fielded in three strong units, this is where you would see the Phoenix lord leading his Aspect

Or, it could be a Craftworld that is virbant and 'explosive', a culture that utilises a lot of Fire Dragons.

When you look at the old craftworld builds you will notice that the armies had some major differences. Much more than what you are suggesting with the comparison to the combined Inquisition reference. The point was that the various craftworlds did not use the same core units and the stat-lines varied greatly, they were supposed to shake out something like this:

Wait GK, Inquisitorial and SoB builds aren't considered vastly different?

Alaitoc: Scouting Army with Rangers, Pathfinders and War Walkers at its core. Aspect warriors are supposed to be better than normal but limited in number.
Notable average Stats: WS3 BS 4 T3 I4 Save 5+ Shooting range of infantry 36"
You can do this

Biel-Tan: Assault Army made up of the Avatar and Aspect warriors throughout the army. Fast mobile army made up of specialists.
Notable average Stats: WS4 BS 4 T3 I5 Save 3+ High number of attacks on average than the other armies
You can do this

Iyanden: Resilience Army that uses Spiritseers, Wraithguard and Wraithlords as it core units. Tough army carrying the most formidable weapons.
Notable average Stats: WS4 BS 4 T6+ I4 Save 3+ Carries wrathcannons
You can do this

Saim Hann: Speed and mobility base army that uses Jetbikes and Vypers throughout the army. This is the fastest and most mobile army able to be fielded
Notable average Stats: WS3 BS 3 T4 I4 Save 3+ Just a good all around army mounted on Eldar Jetbikes
You can do this,

Ulthwe: HQ-Seer Councils and Eldrad, Troops are Black Guardians and limited access to aspect warriors
Notable average Stats: WS 3-4 BS 3-4 T3 Save 4-5+ Army was full of guardians buffed by the plentiful psykers and was restricted in access to Aspect warriors.
You can do this

Yes, the armies use the same vehicles but these are from when you rarely saw more than 3-4 vehicles in a non-IG list. Finding a way to bring these craftworlds back while keeping them balanced is what many of the Eldar players would like to see. It doesm't have to be seperate codices, I am fine with one book. However, I am not fine with just one bastardized build. Maybe a btter comparicon would be that the Eldar recieved a similar treatment as the CSM codex. Yeah, It had a couple of good builds but they don't fit the background and over-time it has boiled down to a bland basic build. The codex is getting to the point of needing an update and we are expressing what we think would be nice to see in the next dex and attempting to theorize as to how it will look when set in the newer format.

If you have an ideas of how the codex will change when set in the 5th ed Army special rule/Herohammer format, I would like to hear them.

The current codex allows players to stick to the backround of Craftworlds, but it also allows them to go super competitive if they so wish, and you'll ussually see that Competitive Lists bastardize any codex (Lysander in LR with Termies, but not Imperial Fists. Vulkan in a non-salamander Army ect), you can do this with most armies. Mayhaps it is time that you looked at my sig.

You seriously need to review what has been written as the intent of the thread, how we've been discussing, and what we're trying to avoid. No one is doubting that you can make an army in the STYLE of Iyanden or Alaitoc. That's not really why we're discussing craftworld specific rules (which I'll re-state that I personally do not think are necessary) or why we're discussing remaking units in the codex.

Yes, you can spam out DA, Banshees and Scorpions and paint them white-and-green and say "Biel-Tan!". It's just not effective!

You've got roughly two "different" builds which makes good spots in tournaments:
1. Tank-spam. Minimize your infantry costs, get as many squads of Fire Dragons possible (but keep them minimized) and otherwise go all-out on the heavy tanks, preferably Fire Prisms.
2. Jetbikes. I'm not talking about Shining Spears, I'm talking about Jetbike Guardians to grab objectives and Jetbike Warlocks to do the killing. Supported by tanks.

There are other variations you'll see in tournaments that may even score high, but they are really hard to play with and usually do not involve the following units (or do not rely on them): Banshees, Scorpions, Guardians in any shape or form or any of the Fast Attack choices. Falcons are also ranked low because they are usually out-classed by Fire Prisms.

Suffice to say, tank-spam with supporting dragon-spam is tiresome. The codex isn't broken (in the same way we can say that the DE or Necron codices are perfectly playable, why would they want a new one?) and can produce a competitive list. What we're trying to do is make the codex more interesting and varied in the competitive lists. You'll note how no one has suggested anything dealing with Serpents or Fire Prisms at all? They're fine. That's not the section of the codex that needs work.

...and like you I personally don't think we need craftworld specific rules. I also think we need to kill off a few chapter-specific codices, one Chaos and one Emperor variation are plenty enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Army wide rules, serious edition:

* All units, with no exception, are fleet.
* Farseer powers may be cast through any Eldar Psycher.
* ("Gets hot" and any sort of backfire does not exist in the codex)

It would be nice with the "up to two units may infiltrate" rule, but I'm uncertain how that would impact the overall cost of the units, and how it could be abused. Infiltrating a Guardian squad or a Reaper squad is nice and fair, but sticking two sword-lords in a forest 12" from the enemy is not nice.

Mahtamori, you suggested no Gets Hot! or other "Backfires" not existing, what about POTW?

I agree that the infiltrating units rule could be abused REALLY badly, so unless you could find a way to restrict it, I think it would be best left out. Seeing as we were considering Autarch's allowing you to enter play from pretty much anywhere, there isn't a desperate need to be able to infiltrate loads of units as well.

Gorechild wrote:Mahtamori, you suggested no Gets Hot! or other "Backfires" not existing, what about POTW?

I agree that the infiltrating units rule could be abused REALLY badly, so unless you could find a way to restrict it, I think it would be best left out. Seeing as we were considering Autarch's allowing you to enter play from pretty much anywhere, there isn't a desperate need to be able to infiltrate loads of units as well.

POTW; I was unclear, I meant with regards to technology. It's in parenthesis simply because it's something that's not stated, but there any way.

Infiltrating; yeah, my assessment as well. Could possibly bring back Black Guardians and have them be non-sniping troop infiltrators.

Ooooh sorry, Its obvious what you meant now!

The problem I see with adding another Infiltrating troop is that it will put them in direct contention with pathfinders, I think we should avoid bringing in another unit that will do mainly the same job as an existing unit. I think a better solution would be to give pathfinders different choices in wargear, rather than just snipers

Mahtamori wrote:
*snip*

I see, I misunderstood focusedfire's posts as calls for seperate Craftworld Codexe's, as he has argued somewhat before that if SM get seperate codexes so should Eldar (he says). I also became a bit defensive when he suggested that IG and SM could (should) be rolled up into one. That's factionalisation for you.

Can I ask how well a high-toughness Iyaden Army does in tournies? (Brightlance Wraithlords and Wraithguard in Falcons galore)

...and like you I personally don't think we need craftworld specific rules. I also think we need to kill off a few chapter-specific codices, one Chaos and one Emperor variation are plenty enough.

Same here, I think that all SM chapters could be included in a single (in-depth) book. Apart from SW, those guys have always been 'out there'. As for Craftworld specific rules, I'm against that as that means people may be influenced in by Tournament effectiveness in chosing their paint scheme. I don't know what suggestions would please Eldar players, I'm obviously out of my depth here.

@EF- Generally I believe (athough having never actually seen one in a tournament) Iyanden lists struggle. They are extremely expensive in points, this coupled with the expensive eldar transports means you get very little in a normal force. They are pretty ordinary in CC as well so get tied up quite easily. If you take Wraithlords instead of prisms (as a true Iyanden list would) you suffer greatly when it comes to fighting hoard armys. In short, they are okay, but dont have anything on Serpent/Avenger/Dragon spam lists

Wait:

1) Iyanden aren't *entirely* reliant on Wraith fighting units, just heavily. So you can have other units present if a siazeable amount is still Wraithguard/Lord.

2) Mahtamori was saying that Dire Avengers aren't effective. Are they?

I believe the more successful MC armies (they aren't Iyanden proper) accomplishes their thing by taking as few troops as possible, 3 BL/EML lords, Avatar, together with Eldrad (since he's the only one who can fortune fortune doom/guide). The list might include a unit of Wraithguard in order to provide cover saves for the MCs and deter vehicles from getting within 12". As far as I'm aware, it accomplishes the melee with the four MCs together with Harlequins (kisses but no jester) and possibly Scorpions. Harlequins provide Wraithguards with cover saves without the enemy being able to shoot at the harlies.
It's a gimmick list, all in all. A bit difficult to work with since you really need your troops to stay together and since you give the initiative to the enemy completely. It all relies on the enemy being unprepared for a castle army.

This is all from reports I've been able to find, so take it with a grain of salt.

Wraithlords really do not work well in lists where troops are mounted in serpents, since lords are too slow.

Ok, i've been following this thread for a while reading it with interest as I'm in the process of writing my own Eldar fandex, 1st draft is almost finished.
Have a look at some of what i've got (i've done more or less the entire army selection, but im not going to post it all yet) if you want to see a particular entry, just ask. If you think something is good or bad, please say why so i can adjust it.

DARK REAPERS
Dark Reaper
3 5 3 3 1 4 1 9 3+
Reaper Exarch
4 6 3 3 2 5 2 9 3+
SPECIAL RULES
Infantry. Fleet of Foot.
WARGEAR
Reaper launcher: The reaper missile launcher has the following profile:
Range: 48” S: 5 AP: 3 Heavy 1
EXARCH WARGEAR
Tempest Launcher: The Exarch has an ancient reaper launcher that fires clusters of small reaper missiles in a great arc. It has the following profile:
Range: G48” S: 4 AP: 3 Heavy 2, ignores cover, pinning
EXARCH POWERS
Fast shot: The unit is adept at laying down a lethal hail of fire from any weapon, firing shot after shot into the enemy. The unit may add 1 to the number of shots fired by their weapons (example, Heavy 1 becomes Heavy 2)
Crack shot: The members of the unit are supreme masters of ranged combat, able to pinpoint their targets with unerring accuracy while on the move. The unit gains the USR: Slow and Purposeful. Crack shot may not be used in the same turn as Fast Shot.

-----------------------------

SWOOPING HAWKS
Swooping Hawk
3 5 3 3 1 5 1 9 4+
Hawk Exarch
4 6 3 3 2 6 2 9 3+
SPECIAL RULES
Fleet of Foot, Jump Infantry.
WARGEAR
Plasma Grenades.
Lasblaster: The lasblaster has the following profile:
Range: 24” S: 4 AP: 4 Assault 2
Swooping Hawk Wings: A model with Swooping Hawk wings moves as if equipped with a jump pack and may use the Deep Strike rules to deploy in missions that allow it. In addition Swooping Hawk wings allow the unit to move 6” in the assault phase as if they had a jetpack.
Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack: When a unit of Swooping Hawks Deep Strikes, it may place 3 small blast markers centred on an enemy model anywhere on the table and roll a scatter die. If an arrow is rolled the marker scatters D6” in the indicated direction and the other 2 blasts are worked out as a barrage. Work out hits and damage as normal.
Range: N/A S: 5 AP: 3 Small blast, Barrage (3), Pinning
Haywire Grenades: Haywire grenades are used for disabling enemy vehicles. They send out a powerful, short-range electromagnetic pulse that shorts out electrical wiring and disrupts the energy systems of its target. A model attacking with these grenades may only make a single attack. If it hits, roll a D6 to determine the effect.
1 = no effect, 2-4 = glancing hit, 5-6 = penetrating hit
EXARCH WARGEAR
Sunrifle: The sunrifle is much more powerful version of a lasblaster, the sunrifle can be fired on varied settings and is potent enough to slay entire squads. It has the following two profiles:
Range: 24” S: 4 AP: 4 Assault 6, Pinning
Range: 24” S: 6 AP: 3 Assault 3
EXARCH POWERS
Intercept: The unit has the ability to combat enemy vehicles on the move, able to do the damage needed quickly and precisely. The unit will never need worse than a 4+ to hit a vehicle in combat.
Rapid Redeployment: The unit may, in the movement phase, choose to move unto 24” in a straight line. The unit may not shoot or assault this turn and receives a 3+ cover save in the enemies following turn. In addition, the unit may make a Grenade Pack attack at any point that they passed over.

----------

SHINING SPEARS
Shining spears
4 4 3 3(4) 1 5 1 9 3+
Spears Exarch
5 5 3 3(4) 2 6 2 9 3+
SPECIAL RULES
Jetbike.
WARGEAR
Shining Spear Jetbike: The Shining Spears jetbike follows all the rules for a normal Eldar jetbike. In addition all Shining Spears have the USR: Skilled Rider
Laser Lance: On any turn in which they initiate an assault, models armed with a laser lance count as having Strength 6 power weapons. In addition they may be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:
Range: 6” S: 6 AP: 2 Assault 1, Lance
EXARCH WARGEAR
Star Lance: The star lance is an extremely powerful laser lance, named for the weapon wielded by Asuryan himself from the back of his flying steed. It follows the rules for a laser lance but has a Strength of 8 in all cases.
EXARCH POWERS
Swift Assault: The unit knows the best time to descend upon the foe after years of combat, on any turn in which they initiate an assault, the unit may gain +2 attacks for charging instead of the usual +1
Withdraw: The unit watches the tides of combat closely for the best moment to withdraw from the fight, ready to attack again later, the unit has the USR: Hit and Run.

Okay dayve, I'm going to completely ignore the Reapers entry you have given. We were discussing the other two units before so i'll give you my opinions on what you said for hawks and spears, eventhough it will be derailing what we have been talking about recently.

Hawks: Stats seem okay, BS is maybe a bit high. The war gear is pretty similar to it is now, although I think the intercept power is good. Like this, Hawks do still fit into the difficult spot where there is no really reason to used them over any of the other FA options we have. Over all they arent bad, but they are acking that little somthing that makes them a competitive choice (Much like they are currenty)

Shining Spears: once again, very similar to they are currently, they will still suffer all the issues they currently have. An idea i was considering was making them T3(5) to make them stand out, then coupled with the hold the charge rule discussed earlier and power weapons they would be good for last minute clearing of objectives or MC killers.

Now...Trying to get back to where we were. If we are giving up on the craftword specific rules idea (I will happily ) we are left with having to sort out general army-wide rules. Is fast but few enough? seeing as many armies have more than one (Waagh + Mob rule for Orks, Combat tactics + Know no fear for Vanilla's ect) it would be more than reasonable to come up with another for Eldar.

I dislike the Fast But Few rule for the simple reason that it further encourages people to take minimized units, leaving the Eldar codex in a state where the high points range look as bad for the Eldar than it does now. Currently, Eldar achieve a max where you can fill your Elite and Heavy Support slots, but the competitiveness of the codex diminishes when you need to flesh out with Troop and Fast Attack choices. With Fast But Few rule, the codex will instead lose competitiveness when you need to bring larger units.

Any good criticism will also present something constructive, so here it is; how about the Fast But Few rule is altered to a Force Organization alteration? All non-vehicle units are bought in minimized sizes with no possibility for expanding them with more models. I.e. your Striking Scorpion won't be larger than 5 models plus ICs, Jetbike squads are sized 3.
For each non-vehicle Eldar squad, one squad of the same type may be added without occupying an additional FOC slot.

This is sort of like one of those marine tactical groups or whatnot. This may also need to be expanded with a few extra modifications, such as each squad has to have an Exarch (to combat DAVU, which I think is an abomination), and possibly combine with focusedfire's idea of limiting the number of aspect warrior choices you may take to avoid Dragon spam (or similar). Each aspect may only occupy one FOC slot?

You could give another bonus for having larger squads? Maybe have it so you get "bonus a" if your squad is below x number of models but you get "bonus b" if it is larger than x?
Get what I mean?
That way, each aspect could either be used as a small fast task force or as a big powerhouse, what do you think?

Regarding the hawks there are 2 main options. Make them better at what they currently do, or completely overall them.
I went with making them better, with improved weapons creating a multiple shot/low strength mobile weapons platfrom, with the option to drop bombs without leaving the board every turn.

The other option i was considering is honing in on their grenade specialist fluf... something along the lines of underslung grenade launchers or similar. Instead of firing normally the hawks could fire grenades of several different types.

Plasma grenade: Target enemy squad, any Eldar unit assaulting the enemy unit gains the effects of assault grenades until the start of the next Eldar turn.
Photon grenade: Target friendly squad, this unit will gain the effects of defensive grenades until the start of the next Eldar turn.
Haywire grenade: Target enemy vehicle, the hawks may attack as though in combat using haywire grenades this shooting phase.
Vibro charge: Target enemy squad, enemy unit takes a pinning test at -1 (per hit scored)
Shuriken capsule: S3 AP6 Barrage(x). Target must be in Los, x=number of hawks in the unit
Corrosive grenade: Target enemy unit, cover saves taken by this unit are modified by -1 until the start of the next Eldar turn
Smoke grenade: Target friendly unit, cover saves taken by this unit are modified by +1 until the start of the next Eldar turn

There are plenty of ideas for grenade types, its just what to include/exclude being the main problem.

----------

Regarding Shining Spears. As they are they are decent at killing MC albeit an expensive way of doing so, the 'swift assault' rule and a reduction in points cost could be all this unit needs. 'Hold the line', may not be needed if we are including an Autarch +1/-1 reserves modifier.

----------

Army wide rules.
Fast but Few seems appropriate, in my experiance Eldar seem to work better in small groups, and they are faster than most (well they used to be at least). But here are some other ideas for consideration.

First idea
Careful Planning: The Eldar race are able to discern the future, reading the strands of fate as they are presented to them. The Eldar will endeavour to deliver a crushing blow to an enemy force, disabling their ability to retaliate. Reserves may be put into groups, each group will be rolled for with one roll as if they were one unit. Each group must arrive the same way (deep-striking, outflanking, etc) and if they are arriving via a table edge, must all move on from the same edge. Every unit in the group must arrive at once (no holding some units back)

Now, there will need to some sort of cap on how many units you can put into each group, and how many groups you could have. But i'll leave that up for discussion.

Second idea
Divination: Similar to Eldrad's ability but maybe just D3 units, or even D3-1. Eldrad can then (if he is still included) have his ability changed to modify this roll by +1 or +2 depending on what the original army-wide effect is.

----------

Craftworld specifics. When building your army list you may choose one trait.

Ulthwe: For every guardian squad (after the second) you may purchase an additional Farseer that does not use up a FOC slot. DA moved to ELITE. Reduced warlock cost for guardians.
Iyanden: For every full unit of wraithguard you may purchase a wraithlord that takes up a FA slot (gets Fleet for X points) or an ELITE slot (gains BS5 for X points).
Beil-tan: If the Avatar is taken you may move two units of aspect warriors to the TROOPS section of the FOC and they become 0-1 choice (you may not buy those units in their original slots)
Saim-hann: GJB squads gain shuriken pistol + CCW, each unit may include a cheiftan as opposed to a warlock for X points. The chieftan has the following stats.
WS: 5 BS: 4 S: 3 T: 3(4) W: 2 I: 5 A: 2 Ld: 9 Sv: 3+
And is armed with shuriken pistol, power weapon.
In addition, any unit of GJB may purchase other weapons instead of the shuriken cannon at the following points costs (etc etc etc)
Other guardian units may not be taken.
Alaitoc: Not sure on this one. Bring back ranger disruption?

I think we'll leave the Hawks and spears untill we've got everyones view on army wide rules, I dont know if we are continuing with the Craftworld specific rules, but if we are, your suggestion for Iyanden seems okay. I believe the Ulthwe one to be VERY over powered, 6 Farseers in a list is just harsh.

Careful planning I like the sound of however :thumbs up: It would stop the REALLY annoying situation where your ony make one reserve roll and it leaves 1 unit stranded to get destroyed, and doesn't seem unreasonable. Wait to see the others views on it but I think you night be on to somthing there

Gorechild wrote:You could give another bonus for having larger squads? Maybe have it so you get "bonus a" if your squad is below x number of models but you get "bonus b" if it is larger than x?
Get what I mean?
That way, each aspect could either be used as a small fast task force or as a big powerhouse, what do you think?

Sounds a bit... complicated.

What about simply making the Eldar Wargear and special rules so that they get costed sufficiently high that they become few in comparison?
I mean, have an aspect warrior cost similar to a space marine equivalent, only without the armour but with more mobility. For instance, what if all Eldar assault units were equipped with flip belts, how much would that be worth? And what about holo suits or personal force fields for select troops?
I mean, we don't have to have army-wide special rules to make the units special. In fact, for Eldar it might make more sense not to have army-wide special rules simply because they are meant to be specialized.

Each unit could have extra tech or extra special rules applied as fitting their role instead. Flip Belts for assault units such as Banshees, Scorpions and Storm Guardians. Personal forcefields (5+ invulnerable) for hold-the-line type of units such as Scorpions, Reapers and maybe even Shining Spears and bike Guardians. Targeting assist helmets for Hawks and Reapers which mitigates night fighting and cover saves. Displacement suits (always count as in at least 5+ cover) for appropriate units such as Banshees, Storm Guardians and Spiders. (Naturally, Conceal Warlock power need to be changed to something along the line of provides Stealth USR). Holo-Grenades for deep strikers which either provide a 4+ save against anti-deep strike abilities or even a 4+ cover save on the turn they arrive.
There are almost endless possibilities. Eldar are fairly poorly/standard equipped for such a high-tech race.

I think a higher point cost for units accross the board is a reasonable suggestion fluff-wise. It would give the army the feeling that every eldar life is precious, just as they say in the fluff. It might make for a very hard army to play (15+ points for a T3 SV4/5+ will be pretty unforgiving to new players). It would call for a complete re-build of the entire army and the way we approach everything though.

I agree with you that there needs to be a greater availability of lots of different bits of wargear and stuff though. I'm thinking of eldar in Dawn of War, they can infiltrate their buildings and have a vast selection of upgrades to take advantage of, where as you see alot less of this in the codex.

@dayve110:

Grenades in general: remember that they function in the first phase of combat, not until next turn.
Plasma Grenades: Most units in the Eldar army which need assault grenades already has them, so I think this option would only clutter the rules entry.
Photon Grenades: Tau Defensive Grenades in other words. For the reason they are Tau Grenades and for the reason that I think defensive grenades is something you really don't need to have to rely on an external unit to provide (not to mention that you're bombarding your own units!) I dislike this one.
Haywire Charge: I altered the name slightly. "Attacking as if in close combat" means a few things: automatic hits on stationary targets, really difficult to hit on moving targets, only hitting on 6+ on dreadnoughts, and the targets gaining no cover saves against what is essentially a shooting attack. Maybe a template rule (small blast, units not under the hole can only score glancing hits?) with no restrictions on shooting phase.
Vibro Charge: I like this one.
Corrosive Grenades: I like this one.
Smoke Grenades: How about it places a large blast template size area terrain that provides 5+ cover?

Although I should perhaps personally state that I see more potential for the unit to get an over-haul to become something like a Storm+Defender Guardian aspect warrior with jump pack and have the grenades provide Assault Grenade + additional attack on charge. We're missing a unit option like that. I.e.
Aspect Warrior statline. CCW+Pistol, Lasblaster. Unit's main target is Space Marine scouts or lighter, land close, shoot, assault.
That's side tracking our current line of discussion, though.

---

Careful Planning: I like this one.
What about a rule of three? You may group up to three separate unit entries as one combat group.

Divination: I like this one as well, even if it has a Farseer feel to it.
A strong contestant for an Eldar army-wide rule. I'd set it to a fixed value of 2, so that you can rely on it, though. (IIRC this is the re-deploy special rule, right? I'm on vacation in a remote forest so to speak) Could rename it to something like Holographic Simulacrum if you want to detach it from the Farseer part, though.

---

Gives me an idea... which is completely random and not at all properly thought through...

Eldar are really strong on the holo-side of warfare. Their tanks are shimmering things who's visual appearance constantly warp around, making them hard getting a fix on. What if they are able to purchase Simulacrum troop. Essentially, you flesh out the Eldar infantry with holographic simulations. They can't shoot, can't attack in melee, and only ever get cover saves. They're there to soak bullets.
Sort of like Mirror Image from Dungeons and Dragons or Illusions from Starcraft series.

@Mahtamori - your holo-field style suggestion for infantry woud be interesting. I would see it as a wargear upgrade possibly, rather than a rule, but it is a very "Eldar-y" idea. I like it.

As far as Careful planning goes I think "reserves may be joined into groups of up to 3 units and are rolled for as if they were a single unit. They must all enter play within 18" of eachother and must all arrive on the same turn" would do the job perfectly.

That along with Fast but Few streamlined to "Fast but Few- All units with this rule may roll 2D6 when running, the highest result is always used" would be plenty for Army wide rules IMO.

Thoughts?

Fast but Few seems good.

With careful planning, would you consider a wave serpent with dire avengers + Farseer as 1 unit? or three? how about,

"reserves may be joined into groups of up to 3 units (passengers in vehicles and attached caracters do not count towards this limit) and are rolled for as if they were a single unit. They must all enter play within 18" of eachother and must all arrive on the same turn"

Gorechild wrote:@Mahtamori - your holo-field style suggestion for infantry woud be interesting. I would see it as a wargear upgrade possibly, rather than a rule, but it is a very "Eldar-y" idea. I like it.

As far as Careful planning goes I think "reserves may be joined into groups of up to 3 units and are rolled for as if they were a single unit. They must all enter play within 18" of eachother and must all arrive on the same turn" would do the job perfectly.

That along with Fast but Few streamlined to "Fast but Few- All units with this rule may roll 2D6 when running, the highest result is always used" would be plenty for Army wide rules IMO.

Thoughts?

The name "fast but few" is a bit iffy, for lack of better word, but I can still not come up with a better alternative.

The way I envisioned the holo-field would simply read that any unit may be joined by up to 5 holo images for about half the price of a normal model.
Holo images may not shoot or attack in melee, but may still be the subject of attacks and may have wounds assigned to them like an ordinary member of the squad. Casualties among the holo images are ignored for all purposes of combat resolution, squad size, etc., but once a holo image has been damaged, it will no longer be functional for the remainder of the battle. Holo images are ignored if the unit suffers wounds or casualties from terrain or movement; a squad of Warp Spiders which roll a double on their jump during the assault phase may not remove a holo image, for instance.

For the price the last part may be a bit restrictive, though, but the idea is that you buy 1-5 extra wounds for the unit.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/309376.page#1806983

dayve110 wrote:Fast but Few seems good.

With careful planning, would you consider a wave serpent with dire avengers + Farseer as 1 unit? or three? how about,

"reserves may be joined into groups of up to 3 units (passengers in vehicles and attached caracters do not count towards this limit) and are rolled for as if they were a single unit. They must all enter play within 18" of eachother and must all arrive on the same turn"

This is more or less covered in the BRB. Squads in their transports count as a single unit for reserve rolls, same goes for ICs joined with a squad. I'd also say that deployment must be made in a similar manner, from the same table edge, and that all units in the group must be eligible for such a deployment and then leave it at that.

If they arrive through outflanking, they all arrive from the same table edge (but not necessarily the same section of that table edge), but only provided they all have Outflanking or Scout special rule in some way.
If they deep strike, they must all have Deep Strike deployment or be Jump Infantry, and may deep strike anywhere they so please.

Essentially, it's not a huge advantage, you just get to get your reserves arriving in groups rather than random batches. After all, you may find that your entire reserve arrives at turn 4, so it might work to your disadvantage (although if you have an autarch, that's less probable)!

Instead to the holo-guardians or holo-avengers ect being a rule it could be a wargear entry, "a squad of X may purchase upto 5 Holo-X's for 5 points each. They move with the unit but may not fire or make any attacks in close combat, wounds may be alocated against them as with any other model"

Badly phrased, but it gets the message across

Wow, finally finished reading through all that, saw some ideas I really liked and some I didn't, but as for the matter at hand:

@Gorechild- I LOVE this holo-image thing and think it would be amazing as wargear. What about a version of it for vehicles that can take a single hit instead of the actual vehicle. I've never thought that the current vehicle holo-fields were all that great.

MandalorynOranj wrote:Wow, finally finished reading through all that, saw some ideas I really liked and some I didn't, but as for the matter at hand:

@Gorechild- I LOVE this holo-image thing and think it would be amazing as wargear. What about a version of it for vehicles that can take a single hit instead of the actual vehicle. I've never thought that the current vehicle holo-fields were all that great.

One of the ideas behind it was that it's relatively easy and cheap making these holo images for infantry - you simply pick up an extra box of them from your FLGS and paint them your craftworld colours in brighter or bluer tones. Making a similar vehicle upgrade is a bit more difficult to justify completely soaking a hit, additionally hitting a vehicle is easier while wounding it is harder, the idea is that the image is simply a semi-sentient piece of shiny air. Rolling for penetration on semi-permeable air?
I think the holo fields on vehicles does their job admirably, although one could argue that they would rather provide a cover save - but then you'd find that you're encouraging the mobile Eldar to stay put which is something only the Falcon would ever really benefit from.

For Vypers and War Walkers, sure, having these as upgrades makes sense. They die so easily in either case, and it's easy (if a bit expensive) to make them. Plus they are already squadrons!

@MandalorynOranj- Wow I'm impressed you read all 12 pages of our ramblings

In regards to the holo-field idea, It was Mahtamori's not mine I just run with them whenever I hear a good idea! I reckon you could have a standard cost for the holo-troopers, as they are effectively a +1 W upgrade for a unit. I'd set the bar at about 5 points each, maybe a little higher but maybe only a point or two. Limit the number allowed to the number of models originally in the unit (a squad of 10 guardians are allowed 10 holo's, a unit of 6 banshees are allowed 6 holo's ect). I've always seen the Holo-field upgrades for vehicles to be very effective, it is a considerable amout of points, but it seems balanced. I might suggest a point decrease for it on things like war walkers and vypers though, 35 point upgrade for a 45 point model?! no thanks!

I'd like to hear focusedfire's view on the army wide rules we've come up with, he's seemed to disappear after emperors faithful chipped in

OK, hopefully the third time will be the charm. Interwebz ate my first reply and life interupted my second try.

Now about the army wide rules. I agree with Gorechild about the holo-fields being a wargear item. I also feel that Divination should be left to a special character. I believe Careful Planning has possibilities and still also believe that the Fast but Few and the Craftworld Rules still have merit.


Before getting into the proposed rules I would like to go over what (IMO) should be the defining factors of such rules, then list the ideas that everyone seems to agree upon and finally go over some of the problems not handled by the agreed upon ideas along with some of my less liked ideas(With new variations) of how to handle these problems.


Army Wide rules should help to define the Army while expressing the basic principles that the race/faction was designed around. They should embody what are the defining characteristics of a army while still promoting balance. GW sometimes does a good job with this and at other times not so much. The current IG codex has very well balanced army wide special rules(AWSR) while the SM's chapter tactics are arguably OTT. Now just because a set of AWSRs are OTT doesn't mean that the army will be Top Tier, sometimes the negatives that balance the army help to guide players into finding the right lists.
IMO, the goal of writing an AWSRs is for them to work organically in a way that encourages a variety of effective builds while expressing the fundamental ethos/defining concepts of the army.

So far the defining concepts that we seem to be agreeing upon are:
1)Fast-The eldar should be scary fast and everyone seems to like the idea of the infantry having universal fleet and all jump-infantry and bikes getting the skilled rules.
Now, personally, I am torn about my idea of rolling 2d6 and using the d6 with the highest value during the run move. I can't decide if it should be assault aspects only, all Aspects or for all infantry. Personally I am leaning towards limiting it to the Aspects.

2)Few-The Eldar are supposed to be a small incredibly elite force and there should be no unit in the game that can match an Aspect warriors skill or deadliness in the Aspects Warriors chosen path.
We all seem to agree that guardian squads of 20 just don't fit(Holo-Simalcrums seem to be a great fix for this but as a wargear item) and we so mostly agree that something should be done to counter-balance the spamming. Problem is, "How to express such in a possible AWSR?".
So while we agree on the concept of few, we have not come to an agreement as to how.

3)Eldar are Psykers(Minds Eye)- Very good rule that we all seem to like, but is probably OP as an Army wide rule unless tied to a specific craftworld. Because Craftworlds are a source of contention, I will leave this untill later.

4) Careful Planning- I like it but it doesn't feel finished. I am also concerned about an exploitation issue when combined with the Hold for the charge rule for the Shining Spears, also in many ways I could see this as an Autarch rule as opposed to an AWSR.


Now the problems not yet handled are still the very same issues currently plaguing the Eldar. When you mash all of the Craftworld units into one codex without a mechanism for balance, aside from arbitrary pricing, you quickly end up with a monobuild army that is made up of a few no-brainer units. Some of these no-brainer units were originally designed to where you had to sacrifice something major in order to use them, but now require no such sacrifice. It is the attempt to take what was a specialist army and to make it generic that really unbalanced the last Eldar codex. There is also the lack of units with certain capabilities needed for the more mechanized 5th edition game that is causing a spamming of certain other units. This is limiting the flavor and variety of the viable builds.
So, If the following are problems:
Dual Seer/Jetseer Councils are no brainers
Fire Dragons are Spammed
Min troop units in WS
&
Units being dicarded

Then how much of this needs to be addressed in the AWSRs and how much of it in rebalancing the individual rules? There is a temptation to attept to handle everything in the big rules rather than using them as a subtle nudge in the right direction. Now, I want to go over my revised ideas and a couple of tweaks to some of the others that are proposed.


1) Fast but Few-The Eldar are extremely quick and graceful but spend hundreds of years refining their speed and martial prowess. The result of this is that while the Eldar strike with blinding speed and effectiveness, each causualty suffered is a much greater loss in relation to other armies. The Fast but Few rule has the following effects:
a)All Eldar Infantry units have the Fleet USR
b)Aspect Warriors roll 2d6 and will keep the d6 with the highest value for any run moves they may take.
c)Eldar Jump-pack and Jet-bike units with this rule have the skilled rule, which allows them to re-roll dangerous terrain tests.
d)All Units of Aspect Warriors purchased above minimum strength will be worth +1 KP to their normal value, If purchased at min strength they are worth 1KP.
e)Farseers are worth 2 KP.



2)Craftworlds-A Player may choose a single craftworld theme for their army from the list of Craftworlds or may choose to not field one of the listed Craftworlds. If the player chooses to not use a listed Craftworld then they may not benefit from this Craftworld rule.
The Following is a list of each Eldar Craftworlds Special Rule:

Alaitoc: Path of the Outcast-Each Ranger and Pathfinder unit on the table may sacrifice their scout move to roll a d6. On a roll of 4+ for Rangers and 3+ for Pathfinders the unit may fire upon an enemy unit prior to Turn 1. However, any units that do not possess the Scout or Infiltrate rule must enter the game from reserves.

Biel-Tan: Court of the Young King-If the Avatar is taken as a HQ, then the Fast but few penalty of +1 KP on Aspect units purchased above minimum strength no longer applies. However, each unit of Aspect Warriors on the Table must test pass a leadership test at the beginning of each turn or they will suffer from the Rage USR untill the next turn.

Iyanden: Army of Ghosts-Units of 5 Wraith Guard may be taken as troop choices if a Spiritseer is included in the Unit, but any Apect Warrior Units taken will be worth +1 KP to their normal total value.

Saim-Hann: Wild Riders-Guardian Jetbikes receive the Skilled Rider rule and Vehicles receive Star Engine upgrade or free, but the Army may only include one unit per FoC with less than a 12" base movement and only if these units have purchased a Wave Serpent.

Ulthwe: Minds Eye- Farseers may cast his powers through any warlock within 18", with LoS drawn from the Warlock used as conduit for the Power. When this is attempted, both farsser amd warlock must take a PotW test.


The reason why I am so keen on the Idea of craftworlds, is that they form such an important part of the Eldar Story. I look at their inclusion as a more balanced form of the SW sagas. The Eldar Empire used to span the galaxy but now they are just a few remnants living of craftworlds that each has its own philosophy and culture. I would like to see this represented in a manner that tries on a basic level to balance the bonuses with suitable limitations.

Now I know that these rules are not fully developed, but think they are a step in the right direction. I have tried to incorporate your various ideas into rules that fit the goals I stated earlier and will work well with some of the wargear ideas (Simulcrums-Holo-graphic clones). Let me know what you think.



About Careful Planning, I am getting tired and will stop soon, but I've got an idea for taking it down to two units but they come in from reserve on any turn that you want them to and they do so within 12" of each other. The units should actually supporting one another if they get to deploy together. Will also need work on clarifying if Independent characters joined to unit count as a seperate unit or not.
Will talk more on this later, when better rested and after thinking of ways this might could be exploited/balanced. Seems good but something isn't quite there yet, imo.

Thanks guys, am going to go rest now,
Later

I get what you're trying to do with the +1 KP on non-minned Aspect squads, but don't you think that will push people towards spamming large amounts of Guardians or other non-Aspects? I agree that something must be done to represent the "Few" aspect of the Eldar, but I see this pushing people away from the army. Maybe have this only aply to maxed squads?

I agree with Oranj here, I like the special rules, but many players may shirk from Aspect Warriors in favour of 'less vital' squads, especially in Tournies where Kill Points will matter.

Good rules though. I still question how this is going to be enforced, as their really isn't any major difference between Craftworlds apart from a paint job. What happens to DIY Craftworlds?

Here's a new and refined take on AWSR (army wide special rules):
* Fleet of Foot - applies to all infantry units, with only a very few exceptions (Wraithguard, Wraithlord, War Walker and Dark Reaper)
* Graceful Step - renamed "fast but few", when running running roll an additional dice and choose the highest result. That's it. Given to assault units, namely Storm Guardians, Scorpions, and Banshees.
* Skilled Rider - this is a USR, so I'll just use names everyone are familiar with. Given to Warlocks, Farseers, Autarchs, Shining Spears and Vypers.
* Precision Jump - as Skilled Rider, but applies to all Jump Infantry.
* Holographic Images - wargear, yes, but available to any infantry unit. Holographic Images are essentially small holographic projectors, which create a semi-permeable image of an Eldar warrior. The image itself is an advanced containment field, not merely a pale light projection, and is thus a most believable image which presents a very realistic appearance throughout all spectrums of observation. The image is treated as an ordinary member of the squad, but has zero-level characteristics and does not count for any purposes of morale.

Note: Harlequins are left alone, they will likely end up as they end up in the DE codex.

Farseers and KP: If the problem is that Farseers are too good not to take, then remove the reliance on them. If Divination is granted by a Farseer, have Divination moved to either a universal army rule or applied to a less-opted HQ which needs the crutch.
2D6 running and aspect warrior: There are several aspect warriors where this just doesn't make sense, above all Dark Reapers, while Storm Guardians really really need it.
Craftworlds: while I do agree that the craftworlds are important to the fluff, I do not think they are so important that there's a vast difference in how the worlds actually operate on such a fundamentally basic ground that they tailor world-specific rules to them. I think it's more a choice of troop which are taken. Especially considering that balancing the craftworlds between them becomes a chore. For instance, as the guidelines presented aren't Iyanden massively underpowered on kill missions and throughly rely on Wraithguard actually being massively better than most aspect warrior choices? What will that do to other armies and their Elite choices?
Mind's Eye: The basic idea behind this is simply this; Farseers shouldn't baby-sit units that need Guide. I think limiting range and inflicting POTW on both models are unnecessary, especially considering that most Farseer powers are buffs to their own units - it's not an Empire army where you'll start to expect lightning bolts coming out of every unit instead of just one. Yes - Eldar powers are good, but I don't feel they impact the enemy army so directly that range is that much of an issue.
Kill Points in general: The game is less about kill points now than ever before. Muck around with assigning more KP to certain units is counter-productive I feel. Especially when these penalties apply to melee troops which are naturally put at greater risk, and it will only lead to the codex being even more streamlined towards mech - units that aren't penalized and units that can keep their distance, as well as being expected to outlive a Bolter salvo.

If we want to combat the 5 Fire Dragons in a Serpent phenomenon, then simply put present other alternatives. Give more units Haywire Grenades, have more weapons counter vehicles, give access to melta weaponry in more places, give more units rending. Fire Dragons aren't any different from 3rd edition at all, it's just that they are now presented with targets they are optimal at destroying - back then they were counted as the red-headed stepchild aspect.
For instance, provide Scorpions with Haywire Grenades, give Banshees the option of taking Fusion Pistols, give Swooping Hawk exarch access to Fire Pike, have Deathspinners be Rending, provide Defender Guardians with more platforms, make Wraithguard more attractive, give more incentive to use Vypers.
Essentially, if almost every part of the army is capable of having a secondary or slightly lesser way of dealing with vehicles, you'd only take Fire Dragons in order to specifically deal with vehicles when you know vehicles will be very prominent - Spearheads for instance.

I think Careful Planning is pretty straight forward. Units which are normally rolled for with a single dice may be combined so you roll for multiples of them with a single dice. It doesn't statistically affect the likelihood of having the units arrive on a specific turn, it just increases the likelihood of them arriving together so they provide a sort of strength spike to your army. It's basically the difference between burst damage and damage over time.

The way I look at it is this... Space Marines aren't twice as victorious if they kill a unit of banshees than if they killed a unit of squad of fire warriors, So why would you award the opponent any differently?

To a Space Marine, a xeno is a xeno regardless of what species it is. They wouldn't see killing a squad of eldar as being twice as good as killing a unit of Tau for example. The diference is in the value the Eldar place on their lives is much greater than the other races.

The normal way we use in 40K to tell if a unit is is broken and running for their lives is with leadership tests. A more appropriate change (IMO) would be to change the % casualties needed to force an Eldar unit to test leadership, or make it so that you have to take multiple tests or re-roll sucessful LD tests ect. This better represents the demoralising effect of eldar in a squad dying, and doesnt randomly give the impression that everyone wants to kill eldar more (more kill points for the same job).

I think it would be better represented as follows:

Fast but Few-The Eldar are extremely quick and graceful but spend hundreds of years refining their speed and martial prowess. The result of this is that while the Eldar strike with blinding speed and effectiveness, each causualty suffered is a much greater loss in relation to other armies. The Fast but Few rule has the following effects:
a)Eldar Jet-bike units with this rule have the skilled rider, which allows them to re-roll dangerous terrain tests.
b)All other Eldar units with this rule have the Fleet USR and roll 2d6 and will keep the d6 for any run moves they may take, only the highest result is used.
c) Any unit with this special rule must take a leadership for every 25% casualties they take in a single shooting phase. (1 test if they take over 25%, 2 tests if they take over 50%, 3 tests if they thake over 75%) If any one of these tests are failed then the unit begins falling back and cannot regroup.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I agree with Oranj here, I like the special rules, but many players may shirk from Aspect Warriors in favour of 'less vital' squads, especially in Tournies where Kill Points will matter.

Good rules though. I still question how this is going to be enforced, as their really isn't any major difference between Craftworlds apart from a paint job. What happens to DIY Craftworlds?

To address use of different craftworld benifits, I like the idea of tying it to specific craftworld autarchs. You want Saim-Hann rules? You have to take the the wind-rider autarch on a bike - can outfit him as a unique autarch but still takes up one of your HQ slots to field him. (No double farseers with retinues.) Now some (Ulthuwe) might be tied to a Farseer but doing this still puts some restrictions on your build.

My other suggestion is tone down the phoenix lords and turn them into an exarch upgrade. This means you have to buy the specific aspect warriors they are based on. The benifit is that this squad also turns his squad into a troop choice.

I do like some form of penalty for taking minimum squads and dumping them in a wave serpent. Just a suggestion but require an exarch to add a vehicle to aspect squads. Taking the exarch is not a bad thing but it does instantly add cost to units so it takes away some of the "benefit" of min/max builds. To add to this, going down the new GW simplified philosophy, don't make the abilities separate options, just make the exarch get all the abilities automatically. So right now a Banshee exarch would cost +22 with the weapon upgrades still being a choice. I think cost is a better way to adjust. Doubling the KPs is not necessary, the smaller the group of T3 AC4 eldar just makes for an easier to obtain KP for your opponent. Don't have the cost in front of me but 5 Fire Dragons w/o exarch is going to be 30+ points cheaper than when you are forced to purchase the exarch. Suddenly the cost effectiveness of the small squad goes down the tubes.

@Gorechild: I could not disagree more with the leadership test idea. While the eldar do value the life of each soldier more, they are not that much more demoralized by losses in the middle of battle than others. If anything, (at least according to that new Striking Scorpions book) they are less affected by losses in the heat of war. It's pretty tough to explain, you'd kinda have to read it to fully get it.

But gameplay wise, I like DAaddict's ideas about exarch upgrades. Maybe in addition (again, the fluff behind this is coming from Path of the Warrior) make exarchs mandatory in squads under a certain size.

MandalorynOranj wrote:@Gorechild: I could not disagree more with the leadership test idea. While the eldar do value the life of each soldier more, they are not that much more demoralized by losses in the middle of battle than others. If anything, (at least according to that new Striking Scorpions book) they are less affected by losses in the heat of war. It's pretty tough to explain, you'd kinda have to read it to fully get it.

But gameplay wise, I like DAaddict's ideas about exarch upgrades. Maybe in addition (again, the fluff behind this is coming from Path of the Warrior) make exarchs mandatory in squads under a certain size.

How better to explain it than direct people to read Eldrad's fluff? He knows the chances are slim, he know that he will die and that it'll be pretty gruesome, and he constantly send people he love to their deaths because it's necessary. In fact, plan B is "all join the infinity circle and have the last laugh on Chaos".

ATSKNF is a pretty decent rule to describe few but staunch defenders. Essentially immune to morale, but the over all numbers in the army is low.

I'm not advocating ATSKNF for Eldar.

I am, however, agreeing on mandatory exarchs. For all squad sizes, really. Additionally, having Eldar have more stress on the FEW aspect, limit squad sizes to minimum and stick more squads per FOC slot allowable.

Btw, can we branch out to another subject again? I'm dying to discuss Dark Reapers

Well as I see it, the only real way to make eldar few in number would be to lower maximum squad sizes, or to increase their point cost considerably. The problem with increasing the points is that you will end up with having to edit statlines and wargear to reflect the increase. If you just give each unit tonnes of fancy wargear you end up with an army thats so confusing nobody knows what each unit can do!
Lowering maximum squad sizes will result in lots of cheap throw away units, which again isn't really right. Or it results in a few cheap units and a mass of vehicles ect, which is what we have and are trying to avoid.

My view is that the main problem isn't the number of models you see being fielded, but the fact that half of them are painted orange and yellow, deployed out of a vehicle for 1 turn then removed as casualties. There needs to be more viable builds and units before we worry about making them fewer in number.

For Fast but Few how about we say: All units with this rule have the Fleet USR. In addition, if a unit is purchased at minimum strength it may roll 2d6 when running and take the highest result?

I think were looking at too many different rules and it would just be confusing to any non-eldar player.

MandalorynOranj wrote:I get what you're trying to do with the +1 KP on non-minned Aspect squads, but don't you think that will push people towards spamming large amounts of Guardians or other non-Aspects? I agree that something must be done to represent the "Few" aspect of the Eldar, but I see this pushing people away from the army. Maybe have this only aply to maxed squads?

It isn't that big of a deal. The Army as I envision it, follows the 5th ed format of sgts included. This means Exarchs are auto included(Even though there should only be one per craftworld, this was the original reason behind making the unit unique). This combined with the +1KP means that the Storm guardians will become reatively viable as an Anti-tank alternative. This will not affect the Eldar much in low to medium point games. As far as higher point games, I'm lookig at shooting Aspects getting to spilt fire while Assault Aspects get to combat sqaud in the game as long as they are at full strength.

If the +1 KP only applies to maxed units then you will see 3 squads of 9 FDs. As far as pushing people away, I don't think so. Some would grumble, but when they realize that it doesn't really affect the Eldar unless you are squadering your units they will come back. I

Emperors Faithful wrote:I agree with Oranj here, I like the special rules, but many players may shirk from Aspect Warriors in favour of 'less vital' squads, especially in Tournies where Kill Points will matter.

Good rules though. I still question how this is going to be enforced, as their really isn't any major difference between Craftworlds apart from a paint job. What happens to DIY Craftworlds?

A)Thanks, and if it breaks up the FD spam then it will be good. Also, It would increase the kill points in an average build by only 3. I think the benifits to gameplay would out-weigh any negatives.

B) Again, Thanks for the kind words. So many of my ideas are getting auto-nixxed that I've been beginning to think that I had lost my touch. As far as enforcing the craftworlds, it is simple. You may take a craftworld from the list and must apply the negatives as well as the positives. Pint colour while a helping courtesy to your opponent doesn't matter as much as younaming the craftworld. Once named you must apply the positives and the negatives. If you fail to announce the craftworld then it is a generic Eldar list that is subject to the rules withou modification by the craftworld.

I think that possibly tying the craftworlds to specific Hero HQ's would be good but the Eldar already have more HQ's than they can use. This could be fixed by making Phoenix Lords operate outside of the FoC.

Mahtamori wrote:Here's a new and refined take on AWSR (army wide special rules):
* Fleet of Foot - applies to all infantry units, with only a very few exceptions (Wraithguard, Wraithlord, War Walker and Dark Reaper)
* Graceful Step - renamed "fast but few", when running running roll an additional dice and choose the highest result. That's it. Given to assault units, namely Storm Guardians, Scorpions, and Banshees.
* Skilled Rider - this is a USR, so I'll just use names everyone are familiar with. Given to Warlocks, Farseers, Autarchs, Shining Spears and Vypers.
* Precision Jump - as Skilled Rider, but applies to all Jump Infantry.
* Holographic Images - wargear, yes, but available to any infantry unit. Holographic Images are essentially small holographic projectors, which create a semi-permeable image of an Eldar warrior. The image itself is an advanced containment field, not merely a pale light projection, and is thus a most believable image which presents a very realistic appearance throughout all spectrums of observation. The image is treated as an ordinary member of the squad, but has zero-level characteristics and does not count for any purposes of morale.

Note: Harlequins are left alone, they will likely end up as they end up in the DE codex.

We all seem to agree on:

1)Army wide fleet
2)Apects getting a bonus to their run rule(Roll2d6 and Keep the highest)
3)Non-infantry Aspects gettingSkilled rules
4)All Eldar infantry having access to Simulcrum projections as wargear, not as an AWSR(Still needs balanced formal rules)
And,
5) Harlequins becoming pretty much the same as what the DE get.


We disagree on:
A)Basic Eldar getting the run bonus
B)Shooting Aspects getting the run bonus
C)Non Aspect non-infantry getting skilled rules
and
D)Craftworld Rules

My Reply to the disagreement
A) Guardians have not spent hundreds of years drilling incessantly on how to move in their armor
B) Shooting Aspects would drill on how to Run because the Run rule isn't just for assualt units, but for rapid redeployment for a better vantage point to fire for shooting units.
C) Eldar Jetbikes already have a built-in bonus
D) Mahtamori and I will just have to disagree and the importance of the various craftworlds and exactly how different they are.

Mahtamori wrote:Farseers and KP: If the problem is that Farseers are too good not to take, then remove the reliance on them. If Divination is granted by a Farseer, have Divination moved to either a universal army rule or applied to a less-opted HQ which needs the crutch.
2D6 running and aspect warrior: There are several aspect warriors where this just doesn't make sense, above all Dark Reapers, while Storm Guardians really really need it.
Craftworlds: while I do agree that the craftworlds are important to the fluff, I do not think they are so important that there's a vast difference in how the worlds actually operate on such a fundamentally basic ground that they tailor world-specific rules to them. I think it's more a choice of troop which are taken. Especially considering that balancing the craftworlds between them becomes a chore. For instance, as the guidelines presented aren't Iyanden massively underpowered on kill missions and throughly rely on Wraithguard actually being massively better than most aspect warrior choices? What will that do to other armies and their Elite choices?
Mind's Eye: The basic idea behind this is simply this; Farseers shouldn't baby-sit units that need Guide. I think limiting range and inflicting POTW on both models are unnecessary, especially considering that most Farseer powers are buffs to their own units - it's not an Empire army where you'll start to expect lightning bolts coming out of every unit instead of just one. Yes - Eldar powers are good, but I don't feel they impact the enemy army so directly that range is that much of an issue.
Kill Points in general: The game is less about kill points now than ever before. Muck around with assigning more KP to certain units is counter-productive I feel. Especially when these penalties apply to melee troops which are naturally put at greater risk, and it will only lead to the codex being even more streamlined towards mech - units that aren't penalized and units that can keep their distance, as well as being expected to outlive a Bolter salvo.

1)Farseers- Only so much room in an AWSR and I refuse to waste any of that space making a no-brainer HQ even better. Farseers will have ther special rules as one of the Eldar force multiplier units, They don't need anything else. Also, the time it takes to train a Farseer, yeah they are worth an extra KP.

2)Limiting the 2D6 Run keep the highest bonus-There is no way Storm guardians would get such. They are still gaurdians and should have drawbacks from being the typical reservist. Where most reservists I've ever know could shoot very well and perform their job proficiently, they are not on the same leval as special forces units. As to the run bonus being limited to only the assault Aspects, again I say that the run rule is not just for assault aspects, It is just as vital of a tool for ranged aspect that need to redeploy for position.
3)Craftworlds-Craftworlds are not the mixed bag of bastardization that they are now. They are supposed to be very different as a magnification of the Eldars tendency to take things to the extreme.
a- Biel-Tan are supposed to mainly Aspects and Highly aggressive,
b- Saim-Hann are supposed to be nothing but Jet-bikes and units that move 12"+,
c- Ulthwe is supposed to be Seer Councils and Guardians while also being limited on Aspects,(could change them to having the same penalty as Iyanden
d- Alaitoc is a scouting army that is supposed to have very but the best Aspect warriors (Maybe give them the Careful planning rule?)
d- Iyanden are supposed to be Wraithguards "and" Guardians because they don't have the manpower or time to train new Aspects.

As to Wraithguard troop units that are 5x models. That would be a very powerful army without using a single Aspect unit. 2 Guardians, 3Wrathlords and 2Harlequins will do quite well with 3xWraith Guard troop units when you remember the Holographic Simulcrum projectors. I believe that the Craftworlds as proposed could be balanced.

4)Minds Eye-It is because the Eldar Psykers are uber that there should be a range or at least a LoS limitation. I was a little worried about the double PotW because the Ulthwe are supposed to be very skilled psykers, but the power needs balance and they are attempting to mind-link in the middle of a battle. I can see using any Warlock in LoS with both taking PotW, or limit the range and only have the Warlock take the test.

5)Kill Points- I disagree on the KP issue. While I can see a possible problem with the mech side of the issue, but tbh the Eldar can't really go any more Mech because they are maxed out as is. I think a mix of Holographic Simulcrums and the KP penalty can be made to balance each other nicely to produce viable non-mech lists.

Mahtamori wrote:If we want to combat the 5 Fire Dragons in a Serpent phenomenon, then simply put present other alternatives. Give more units Haywire Grenades, have more weapons counter vehicles, give access to melta weaponry in more places, give more units rending. Fire Dragons aren't any different from 3rd edition at all, it's just that they are now presented with targets they are optimal at destroying - back then they were counted as the red-headed stepchild aspect.
For instance, provide Scorpions with Haywire Grenades, give Banshees the option of taking Fusion Pistols, give Swooping Hawk exarch access to Fire Pike, have Deathspinners be Rending, provide Defender Guardians with more platforms, make Wraithguard more attractive, give more incentive to use Vypers.
Essentially, if almost every part of the army is capable of having a secondary or slightly lesser way of dealing with vehicles, you'd only take Fire Dragons in order to specifically deal with vehicles when you know vehicles will be very prominent - Spearheads for instance.

Your proposed fix here takes each specialist unit and makes it generalized. Doing such completely removes the skill in creating and using a viable Eldar list. Why? Because as more equipment is shared then the less special each unit becomes. We should be trying to find ways of resurecting and keeping the unique Eldar style, what you proposed here would kill that.
IMO, any fix will use the generalist guardian units and rules that limit the Aspects and things like the proposed simulcrum projectors to create the kind of balance needed for varied lists.

Mahtamori wrote:I think Careful Planning is pretty straight forward. Units which are normally rolled for with a single dice may be combined so you roll for multiples of them with a single dice. It doesn't statistically affect the likelihood of having the units arrive on a specific turn, it just increases the likelihood of them arriving together so they provide a sort of strength spike to your army. It's basically the difference between burst damage and damage over time.

I understand the principle, but if you have a unit that comes in on command like Hold for the Charge, you need to make sure that the wording of the rules don't allow for exploitation. I am unsure about it as an army wide rule becase of the Eldrad ability.

Gorechild wrote:The way I look at it is this... Space Marines aren't twice as victorious if they kill a unit of banshees than if they killed a unit of squad of fire warriors, So why would you award the opponent any differently?

To a Space Marine, a xeno is a xeno regardless of what species it is. They wouldn't see killing a squad of eldar as being twice as good as killing a unit of Tau for example. The diference is in the value the Eldar place on their lives is much greater than the other races.

The normal way we use in 40K to tell if a unit is is broken and running for their lives is with leadership tests. A more appropriate change (IMO) would be to change the % casualties needed to force an Eldar unit to test leadership, or make it so that you have to take multiple tests or re-roll sucessful LD tests ect. This better represents the demoralising effect of eldar in a squad dying, and doesnt randomly give the impression that everyone wants to kill eldar more (more kill points for the same job).

A)It is kill points not victory points
B) In a way the SM's are twice as victorious. It may take a long time to find and train another SM, but there is an endless sea of humanity providing new potential candidates. the SM are only diminished if the Black Caraoace/Gene seed is destroyed(And this fluff seems like it is being backed away from). On the Eldar side, Each soul/life lost is much less likely to be replaced. So, in a sense, each Eldar life is worth at least twice that of any other race.
3)It is not a matter of who is better at killing, but the ability to handle attrition. When a unit is destroyed it "gives up" a kill point. Now if the unit is incredibly hard to replace then it will give up more KP.(Now I am not a fan of the new KP system but if it is a part of the game then use it as a balancing mechanism if need be.)
4)The proposed change in morale rules would cripple the eldar while breaking their back story of being brave warriors.

DAaddict wrote:To address use of different craftworld benifits, I like the idea of tying it to specific craftworld autarchs. You want Saim-Hann rules? You have to take the the wind-rider autarch on a bike - can outfit him as a unique autarch but still takes up one of your HQ slots to field him. (No double farseers with retinues.) Now some (Ulthuwe) might be tied to a Farseer but doing this still puts some restrictions on your build.

My other suggestion is tone down the phoenix lords and turn them into an exarch upgrade. This means you have to buy the specific aspect warriors they are based on. The benifit is that this squad also turns his squad into a troop choice.

I do like some form of penalty for taking minimum squads and dumping them in a wave serpent. Just a suggestion but require an exarch to add a vehicle to aspect squads. Taking the exarch is not a bad thing but it does instantly add cost to units so it takes away some of the "benefit" of min/max builds. To add to this, going down the new GW simplified philosophy, don't make the abilities separate options, just make the exarch get all the abilities automatically. So right now a Banshee exarch would cost +22 with the weapon upgrades still being a choice. I think cost is a better way to adjust. Doubling the KPs is not necessary, the smaller the group of T3 AC4 eldar just makes for an easier to obtain KP for your opponent. Don't have the cost in front of me but 5 Fire Dragons w/o exarch is going to be 30+ points cheaper than when you are forced to purchase the exarch. Suddenly the cost effectiveness of the small squad goes down the tubes.

1)I really like the idea of returning the Craftworld Specific Hero HQs, but if done then the Phoenix lords should become IC's that are chosen outside of the FOC.

2)I had planned all along for the units to be 5th ed with the Exarchs included as part of the price. Believe that was covered while going over the Shining Spears/Warp Spiders/Swooping Hawks.

3) While I believe that improving the Storm Guardians will help, I think that the current game structure rewards 10 meltas in the same unit too much for this alone to make the difference. Increasing unit cost with a mandatory Exarch won't really change things much because he will boost the units performance and people will still purchase the FDs at that price. You cant increase the base cost of the weapon or unit arbitraily or you will drive platers away from the game.
Then, even if you finally break the FD spam build, there will be another spam build just behind it ready to step in and limit the army. Something has to shake out as an overall theme that encourages an elite army that will have 4-5 competitive/differing builds but does so with creating a non-fluffy uber-build. It is for this reason that I look towards re-establishing the craftworld builds, which means establishing limits of specialist builds. I have proposed such limits several times now but it seems like some are hesitant to embrace the necessary evil of restrictions that will allow units to become more effective and a greater variety of builds.

Mahtamori wrote:I am, however, agreeing on mandatory exarchs. For all squad sizes, really. Additionally, having Eldar have more stress on the FEW aspect, limit squad sizes to minimum and stick more squads per FOC slot allowable.

Btw, can we branch out to another subject again? I'm dying to discuss Dark Reapers

1)Not sure about allowing more FOC slots, I think Split fire and in game combat squading of certain units if they are takingat full strength would work better.

2)Another Subject? Sure, Dark Reapers should get Slow and purposeful when firing heavy weapons and a choice of ranged weapons. Maybe give them access to EML or some form of unit wide blast marker weapon.....Discuss

Gorechild wrote:Well as I see it, the only real way to make eldar few in number would be to lower maximum squad sizes, or to increase their point cost considerably. The problem with increasing the points is that you will end up with having to edit statlines and wargear to reflect the increase. If you just give each unit tonnes of fancy wargear you end up with an army thats so confusing nobody knows what each unit can do!
Lowering maximum squad sizes will result in lots of cheap throw away units, which again isn't really right. Or it results in a few cheap units and a mass of vehicles ect, which is what we have and are trying to avoid.

My view is that the main problem isn't the number of models you see being fielded, but the fact that half of them are painted orange and yellow, deployed out of a vehicle for 1 turn then removed as casualties. There needs to be more viable builds and units before we worry about making them fewer in number.

For Fast but Few how about we say: All units with this rule have the Fleet USR. In addition, if a unit is purchased at minimum strength it may roll 2d6 when running and take the highest result?

I think were looking at too many different rules and it would just be confusing to any non-eldar player.

I agree with everything but your version of Fast but Few. Your proposed version will reward min sized units, exactly the thing I am trying to avoid. I know it may sound contadictory when looking at my +1 KP proposal but the difference is that I was trying to discourage spamming maxed out FDs teamed with Min units of DA. FDs in a Wave Serpent don't really need the extra run move.

As the the number of rules. Gotta sort through a lot because of the nature of the Eldar Army. Now if you are reffering to the craft world builds. The rules weren't complicated and the flowed organically with the proposed system.


@All posters- Sorry that the AWSR debate has dragged on for so long. If you guys need a break from them then please discuss the reapers or revisit some if the early units to see how much your thoughts might have changed. Feel free to discuss these previously covered units and the Dark Reapers, just keep in mind that a small change in AWSRs can quickly change what the unit might need in terms of wargear and rules. While you guys have fun on other stuff I will go back for yet another review and possible shot at the AWSRs. I might chip in on the other topics but I will keep hammering at this until another idea clicks. I have spent an ungodly number of hours working on these rules and refuse to give up now.

I look forward to your replies and ideas.

focusedfire wrote:

It isn't that big of a deal. The Army as I envision it, follows the 5th ed format of sgts included. This means Exarchs are auto included(Even though there should only be one per craftworld, this was the original reason behind making the unit unique). This combined with the +1KP means that the Storm guardians will become reatively viable as an Anti-tank alternative. This will not affect the Eldar much in low to medium point games. As far as higher point games, I'm lookig at shooting Aspects getting to spilt fire while Assault Aspects get to combat sqaud in the game as long as they are at full strength.

I'm sorry for the minutiae, but there are way more than one exarch per aspect per craftworld, there's one per shrine, which there could be any number of. Sorry, that was kinda bugging me.

As for Dark Reapers, if we're applying that BS boost discussed earlier for shooting aspects, all they really need is Relentless or Slow and Purposeful and a slight points decrease, otherwise they're fine how they are.

@focusedfire: it's such a huge list and I'm too tired to do proper quoting, so here goes.

Kill points: I should perhaps write, I strongly disagree. Very strongly. It's such an unelegant way of assigning value or removing value to a troop, especially since it only further reinforce that Guardians are throw-away troop meant as a meat-shield. (Remember that the less expensive troop to die absolutely will be sacrificed instead of the more expensive one.)
Does the extra kill point penalty mean they will be discounted in price? Otherwise you certainly are ripping people off or simply want to kill off the option.

Skilled rules: Aspect Warriors are already special with their exarchs. What I am getting at is that it's a matter of practicality. How do you propose to improve Guardian Storms if you refuse to assign them special rules. There's only two options - much more special gear (leading to the logical conclusion that aspect warriors need more special gear to reflect their status) or drop their points (read above, sacrificial troops is disgusting).
Currently I'd rate a Guardian Defender at 5 or 6 points and a Guardian Storm at at most 5 points. Simply improving their armour value doesn't do 2-3 points difference and 8 points is already quite cheap for a dying race.

Jetbikes: I never suggested Guardian Jetbikes should get skilled rider. Again, it is all about practicality. Guardian Jetbikes are much easier to improve upon than attaching special rules to them. I mean, the rider is completely unarmed!

Exarchs: I've never read that each craftworld had only one exarch... The codex fluff hints that there are several within each shrine and the largest craftworlds may have more than one shrine to each aspect.

Guardians and armour: first off, do note that I do not see Guardian Defenders having the run rule. Additionally, Eldar do not need to practice running in their armour, since it's all psycho-plastic.

Farseers: you do realize that Farseers already are a heavy force multiplier without divination, right?

Taking things to the extreme: Craftworld Eldar are all about keeping these tendencies in check. When it doesn't get reined in, you get exarchs and new exciting chaos gods. The point is, you can perfectly fine make any craftworld list you want. It's not a bastardization unless you, as a player, decide to make it one. The list only provides the options.
Take Alaitoc, for example. It's NOT a ranger craftworld. It's a very strict place, almost monastic. The reason they get so many rangers is that they drive Eldar insane with their strictness to a much larger extent than the other craftworlds. Rangers are the Eldar who's been way from the craftworld a long time. An Alaitoc strike force which has been organized strictly from what's on the craftworld is most likely going to have as few rangers a your average Saim-Hann strike force.
Then you get Ulthwé. It's a really large craftworld. The largest, in fact. Saying they can't field forces with lots of aspect warriors should they deem this necessary is like saying a smaller craftworld like Il'Kaith can't field any aspect warriors at all. Ulthwé is different since they're one of few who regularly deploy large amount of Guardians for field ops, and since they keep a military (as opposed to Aspect Warriors being something more of a monastic order) consisting of Guardians.

Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers: Um. You might want to revise one of your statements regarding either of these. You see, Fire Dragons you don't want other parts of the army being capable of taking down vehicles for, then for Dark Reapers you open up for expanding their current MEQ killing with attaching EML to them which is good for GEQ and vehicle killing.

I still hold that the reason you see so many Fire Dragons is that there's so many vehicles. It's better to combat the aberration that is minimized squads in general. If this doesn't give enough space for other Elite warriors, then you need to examine whether to penalize the Fire Dragons or whether to adapt the rest of the army to the current edition.
You need transports dead, quick, in this edition. Give most units in the army a limited anti-tank ability to deal with AV10-11. Fire Dragons are then used to combat Land Raiders and other AV13+ vehicles. That's one solution.
Penalize the Fire Dragons so that you see more of the other aspects and disregard giving vehicle popping abilties to the other parts of the army. I'm afraid I can't see that the army lists will ever change that way.
I wish to remind you of the implementation is important. Remember that I suggested that some options were given as upgrades? How many opt for Harlequins with Fusion Pistols over Fire Dragons? It's not a case of making the rest of the army equal good, but so that you aren't left a sitting duck if you want to try out a different sort of army.

Sorry for having this so wordy. Oh, and do remember that a lot of things I write are options and suggestions, not necessarily complete solutions.

@Mahtamori-Part of what I am trying to resolve is the contidiction in the Eldar that has them steadily dying off but each codex keeps giving them more people and resources while taking away the abilities that made them truly fearsome.

In reply to yours:

Kill points- I think we will disagree on the elegance. Now it is true that I prefered my original Idea of making the Aspects unique with HQs and craftworlds that unlocked greater access, but the resistance I met over the idea made me decide to try another avenue. The thing about the KP is that it doesn't kick in until you make the units larger. Now if you make the units larger, you get some benifits(Like splitting fire) but at a price of an extra KP. This would encourage a greater variety of units. If I make the full squad special ability an in-game ability to split the squad in half, "How many FD Squads do you really need before it becomes counter productive. This essentially gives you six small squads in the Elites Section. Combine that with the improved Guardians and you break the Spam lists. I think that the extra KP is a small price to pay and the ability to split the full units will make the Autarchs and Phoenix lords more desirable, because they would lead the unit without the Exarch.

Skilled-Funny, The Aspects are supposed to be so skilled, but they have to pay points for rules that should already be in their profile considering the per model cost in these units. The Aspects should get the skilled or run bonus rules while the Guardians should get fleet only. There are other ways to make the Guardians better, Such as the boost to their base stats as I proposed before. I think that Guardian Stats should look something like this: WS 4 BS 4 S 3 T 3 W 1 I 4 A 1 Ld 8 Sv 4+ These stats would make the guardians worth 9-ish points each. Add grenades to make it an even 10. Then base all aspect and vehicle scores from there. The Eldar are supposed to be beyond human in skill and grace, then let their stats show it.

JetBikes- Very funny, The rider is quite well armed. As to the disagreeing, I was talking about the group. Gorechild wanted to give skilled rider to the GJBs.

My comment about the Exarchs was from an older edition where they made the Eldar sound like they were down to their last million soldiers. I know the current codex has the Exarchs almost a dime a dozen, but feel that they have cheapened the Exarchs in doing so. I can deal with each Aspect fielded having an Exarch but it would be nice if they were a little more badass or improved the unit a bit more yet discouraged mass spamming.

Guardians and Armour- I don't see any Guardian having the run rule and while the Armour is Psycho reactive, it takes an Aspect warrior a long time to fully use the abilities. Also, the run rule could be considered a conditioned ability from years of training. Think of it like Pakur(Urban running) and the difference between someone who practices once every moth or so and the person who practices every day.

Farseers- Yes, that is why I brought it up. They already have force multiplication abilities that are pretty impressive. So what would be the point of giving them an Army wide rule on top of that rule? They are already a no-brainer unit so why make them even more powerful.

In reply to your comment about the Alaitoc,

By the fluff, Alaitoc IS a Ranger Craftworld.
Read a little further into their history and the fluff says that the Craftworld always has ranger coming in and going out. That partly because they are so strict they have so many outcasts. The Alaitoc fluff states that when the craftworld goes to war, the rangers and pathfinders are called in and are deployed way ahead of the army to sow distruction and disruption amoungst the enemy before the rest of the army arrives. By the description, all Rangers and Pathfinders should have a chance at a free shot before the game begins.(Source Craftworld Eldar Codex Page 18-19)
Now there needs to be a down side to this Ranger bonus so I made units in the army comes in from reserve if they dont have the infiltrate rule.

Your claim about Alaitoc not being a Ranger Craftworld leads me to believe that you have only played the Eldar's current codex. Not trying to be mean or trollish here, just stating from the Craftworlds history, you couldn't be more wrong.

The other craftworlds were just as focused as the Alaitoc and they worked well. Finding a way to field them with this focus with making them OP or fail-tastic while allowing for a few generic lists should be the end goal.

About the Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers, There is not much of a contridiction here. Meltas are anti-heavy tank(Which max are about 3-5 per army) and EML's are anti-Medium/light armor(Which can be up to 15+ in a moden IG list) Now you could make a case about Dark Reapers infringing upon an anti GEQ unit with the blast markers but not with the Melta to EML comparison. The reason why I suggested such is that the Dark Reapers are supposed to be unique amoungst the Aspects in their focus on long ranged warfare and there isn't another Aspect that throws out templates every turn.
BTW, The reason I threw the idea out was to get the discussion going and because they are supposed to be the masters of ranged combat. As to what I seriously think, give them Slow and Purposeful on the turns they shoot and some form of built in cover/Inv save and the unit would be fine, Especially considering the Proposed Fleet rules.

As to the correcting the FD spam, Again I ask you to consider the +1 KP for full sqauds that have the ability to split in-game.

DAaddict wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I agree with Oranj here, I like the special rules, but many players may shirk from Aspect Warriors in favour of 'less vital' squads, especially in Tournies where Kill Points will matter.

Good rules though. I still question how this is going to be enforced, as their really isn't any major difference between Craftworlds apart from a paint job. What happens to DIY Craftworlds?

To address use of different craftworld benifits, I like the idea of tying it to specific craftworld autarchs. You want Saim-Hann rules? You have to take the the wind-rider autarch on a bike - can outfit him as a unique autarch but still takes up one of your HQ slots to field him. (No double farseers with retinues.) Now some (Ulthuwe) might be tied to a Farseer but doing this still puts some restrictions on your build.

Sounds similar to what the Sm codex did with Captain's/Chapter Masters on Bikes, could work. (Rage at Non-Imperial Fists who use Rogal Dorn and Non-Salamanders who use Vulkan)

focusedfire wrote:
B) Again, Thanks for the kind words. So many of my ideas are getting auto-nixxed that I've been beginning to think that I had lost my touch. As far as enforcing the craftworlds, it is simple. You may take a craftworld from the list and must apply the negatives as well as the positives. Pint colour while a helping courtesy to your opponent doesn't matter as much as younaming the craftworld. Once named you must apply the positives and the negatives. If you fail to announce the craftworld then it is a generic Eldar list that is subject to the rules withou modification by the craftworld.

No. Simply no, sorry. Too changable to...impossible to grasp really. It would make hell for anyone trying to keep track of a tourny where someone can claim bonues and easily ignore disadvantages as no opponent is ever going to comprehend or exploit them, especially not in a tournament. You're just trying to achieve so much with this here, and it sounds fantastic, but I think the foundations are simply too shaky.

I think that possibly tying the craftworlds to specific Hero HQ's would be good but the Eldar already have more HQ's than they can use. This could be fixed by making Phoenix Lords operate outside of the FoC.

Like the DH/WH Assassin Operatives?

A) Guardians have not spent hundreds of years drilling incessantly on how to move in their armor

As Eldar they naturally have grace and a swiftness far above that of the Astartes or your normal human. Just saying.

focusedfire wrote:Kill points- I think we will disagree on the elegance. Now it is true that I prefered my original Idea of making the Aspects unique with HQs and craftworlds that unlocked greater access, but the resistance I met over the idea made me decide to try another avenue. The thing about the KP is that it doesn't kick in until you make the units larger. Now if you make the units larger, you get some benifits(Like splitting fire) but at a price of an extra KP. This would encourage a greater variety of units. If I make the full squad special ability an in-game ability to split the squad in half, "How many FD Squads do you really need before it becomes counter productive. This essentially gives you six small squads in the Elites Section. Combine that with the improved Guardians and you break the Spam lists. I think that the extra KP is a small price to pay and the ability to split the full units will make the Autarchs and Phoenix lords more desirable, because they would lead the unit without the Exarch.

If we are going to go by fluff to assign KP restrictions, etc, then I'd propose that Guardian units and Farseers be assigned the limitations, while the aspect warriors on the other hand are the ones expected to make the actual sacrifices.
In either case, in games that does not have KP, you'll be looking at Eldar being significantly better, since the units with the KP punishments would have to be better to merit those punishments (remember that assigning values based entirely on description does not work! The rules and costs are there to make it a game, so arbitrarily saying unit X should cost twice as much since they are rare will just make unit X significantly worse and none would use it)
In games that do have KP, on the other hand, Eldar lists with these units are a liability. The units will be used restrictively and players who keep the costs in mind will avoid putting them at risk since an otherwise even battle might go against them if they lost the wrong unit - not from a tactical stand point but simply because the rules say "you lost that unit, therefore you lose".

I must say that I much prefer limiting the number of each aspect you are allowed to field, and I really think it can be combined with the concept of not having craftworld specific rules. I would rather work with this than assigning KP penalties.

focusedfire wrote:Skilled-Funny, The Aspects are supposed to be so skilled, but they have to pay points for rules that should already be in their profile considering the per model cost in these units. The Aspects should get the skilled or run bonus rules while the Guardians should get fleet only. There are other ways to make the Guardians better, Such as the boost to their base stats as I proposed before. I think that Guardian Stats should look something like this: WS 4 BS 4 S 3 T 3 W 1 I 4 A 1 Ld 8 Sv 4+ These stats would make the guardians worth 9-ish points each. Add grenades to make it an even 10. Then base all aspect and vehicle scores from there. The Eldar are supposed to be beyond human in skill and grace, then let their stats show it.

Yeah, the aspects need more USRs.

This could work.

By the way, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the next codex gave Shuriken weaponry rending. How do you feel about that?

focusedfire wrote:JetBikes- Very funny, The rider is quite well armed. As to the disagreeing, I was talking about the group. Gorechild wanted to give skilled rider to the GJBs.

Ah, it was in reply to Gorechild. Well, I made my own reply at about 5 in the night. I mean in the morning.

<Nevermind, I just re-read the rules for bikes.>

focusedfire wrote:Guardians and Armour- I don't see any Guardian having the run rule and while the Armour is Psycho reactive, it takes an Aspect warrior a long time to fully use the abilities. Also, the run rule could be considered a conditioned ability from years of training. Think of it like Pakur(Urban running) and the difference between someone who practices once every moth or so and the person who practices every day.

Parkour would be "move through cover" or "ignore difficult terrain" That's what Harlequins do
Parkour is not a very fast way of getting from point A to point B, it's rather an elegant and fun way of taking the scenic route. The running rule would rather be the Eldar being significantly better at rushing, bursts of speed. While it does make sense in a way of the ranged aspects or even the jump infantry getting it, for when you absolutely must get as far as possible, the utility of the ability is far diminished if applied to units that would rather not get into melee. They can still run.
For Storm Guardians, Scorpions and Banshees, however, every inch will likely count when trying to charge someone they don't want to get charged by.

focusedfire wrote:Farseers- Yes, that is why I brought it up. They already have force multiplication abilities that are pretty impressive. So what would be the point of giving them an Army wide rule on top of that rule? They are already a no-brainer unit so why make them even more powerful.

Exactly! The reason why they seldom get out of the transport, as I see it, are thus:
1. If you lose the Farseer you lose a great part of your force multiplier. You already get punished enough!
2. You don't need to get out of the vehicle. The Warlock squad is out there and you are likely inside what you're trying to Fortune and in range of what you're trying to Doom.

A fix is to make Warlocks retinue, and limited in number. Say 1-3. This does mean that Eldar need a way of dealing with MCs that isn't Fire Dragons, though. Possibly even requiring Doom to have LOS.

focusedfire wrote:By the fluff, Alaitoc IS a Ranger Craftworld.
Read a little further into their history and the fluff says that the Craftworld always has ranger coming in and going out. That partly because they are so strict they have so many outcasts. The Alaitoc fluff states that when the craftworld goes to war, the rangers and pathfinders are called in and are deployed way ahead of the army to sow distruction and disruption amoungst the enemy before the rest of the army arrives. By the description, all Rangers and Pathfinders should have a chance at a free shot before the game begins.(Source Craftworld Eldar Codex Page 18-19)
Now there needs to be a down side to this Ranger bonus so I made units in the army comes in from reserve if they dont have the infiltrate rule.

Your claim about Alaitoc not being a Ranger Craftworld leads me to believe that you have only played the Eldar's current codex. Not trying to be mean or trollish here, just stating from the Craftworlds history, you couldn't be more wrong.

The other craftworlds were just as focused as the Alaitoc and they worked well. Finding a way to field them with this focus with making them OP or fail-tastic while allowing for a few generic lists should be the end goal.

I played Ulthwé in 3rd edition, which is why I currently have so many useless models. Ulthwé were more or less vanilla Eldar with two upgraded Guardians and one upgraded Farseer council. Not focused at all. The other craftworlds went to lengths removing Guardians from Troop and putting useful troops there.
Ulthwé is also generally the standard army GW use to portray Eldar I've found. It is the Eldar armies for Dawn of War campaigns, for instance.

focusedfire wrote:About the Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers, There is not much of a contridiction here. Meltas are anti-heavy tank(Which max are about 3-5 per army) and EML's are anti-Medium/light armor(Which can be up to 15+ in a moden IG list) Now you could make a case about Dark Reapers infringing upon an anti GEQ unit with the blast markers but not with the Melta to EML comparison. The reason why I suggested such is that the Dark Reapers are supposed to be unique amoungst the Aspects in their focus on long ranged warfare and there isn't another Aspect that throws out templates every turn.
BTW, The reason I threw the idea out was to get the discussion going and because they are supposed to be the masters of ranged combat. As to what I seriously think, give them Slow and Purposeful on the turns they shoot and some form of built in cover/Inv save and the unit would be fine, Especially considering the Proposed Fleet rules.

As I've currently got the Dark Reapers depicted in my fandex article is essentially: +relentless and +ignore cover saves. Then I've tried to remake the exarch powers to provide bonuses to the squad rather than selfishly to himself only.
While I do agree with Slow and Purposeful as a concept, it is a bit awkward in game since you decide whether to shoot in the movement phase and then roll for distance moved. If it comes to worse, some people may argue "you moved full distance, no shooting!". Of course, there are worse examples of GW canon, so I suppose I shouldn't worry too much.

I do think that the Dark Reapers need some way of getting Ignore Cover save, though. Either base or through exarch. That's what kills them atm and what makes the exarch so bloody good. Anything they shoot at on 5th edition tables will be in cover.

focusedfire wrote:As to the correcting the FD spam, Again I ask you to consider the +1 KP for full sqauds that have the ability to split in-game.

Could you elaborate? I feel my automatic reply would be "each separate squad should be as many KP as the FOC slot would have them be"

Well my entire post just dissapeared I'll summarise it again.

I wasn't suggesting skilled rider for a jetbikes, only the ones we intended to give fast but few to.

As far as Reapers go I think S+P is a good decision. Maybe increase their strength to 7 so that they have a bit more punch Vs Transports. Keeping their range and AP. Their point cost is too high, if it was lower they wouldnt really need a change, but as were on the topic I'll explain my views. I think there should be another competitive alternative to the Tempest launcher for the earch and they need exarch powers that benefit the whole unit rather than just the exarch. I think making their weapons blast is a bad decision, they should be rainged anti MEQ not ranged anti GEQ, If we are sticking with our previous idea for giving warp spiders small blasts i dont think it is needed for another aspect.

Sorry its so brief, I couldnt be bothered to type out the whole wall of text again.

I think dealing with one aspect in a vacuum DR or SS or whatever might solve that one problem but they need to be addressed as a whole. That then applies to guardians and storms as they need to be viable to fit in and be a reasonable option.

Minus the weakness of all Eldar of T3 and S3 and the strength of fleet and I4 base as a race what can be done to emphasize the quality of specialized aspects.

Other side is making a role and value for guardians.

So it comes down to a base line and then honing in on the specialty of the aspect.

My proposal would be.

WS 5 BS 4 Ld8 A2 to modify straight CC aspects
WS 4 BS 5 Ld8 A1 to modify straight shooty aspects
WS 4 BS 4 Ld8 A2 to modify middle aspects.

Exarchs are required. Only benefit of the exarch is Ld 9 instead of 8, +1 I, better Sv and special weapon options. Abilities are squad wide and built-in. (e.g. DAs have 5 minimum with exarch at cost of 102 +12 each for up to 5 more DAs. DAs would now have Defend and Bladestorm built in.)

I will make the argument for removing Phoenix Lords as an option for HQ and making them aspect alternative to exarch. Give the +1 to WS, BS,W, S, T, A, LD and better save.) They also would allow that one choice to be taken as a troop choice. Cost would have to be determined but this uses mechanic ala Kronus or Snikrot.

Some of the arguments of defining roles can be solved through these mods. An example would be defining spiders as a generalist exarch and hawks as a shooting aspect. So base stat of a spider is WS 4 BS4 while a Hawk is WS 4 BS 5.

If this model for base definition is there, then we can go onto arguing powers and special weapons to further define roles but then all aspects are on the same playing field.

I think this also supports the guardian changes we have discussed give them. Assume you go to an 18" range Rapid Fire SC for guardians (again to give them range but differentiate the guardians from the DAs.) WS 4, BS4 and
4+ Save. Your defenders have a platform, accurate fire with some range but the DAs (if considered a generalist) have the same WS and BS as well as 4+ Sv but have the rapid fire SC, Bladestorm and Defend as well as 2 base attacks.

As done with the newer SM codex, make grenades built into the cost of guardians. That should be the new baseline and fit the total generalist role of guardians. Aspects have grenades that fit their role but not things to make them multi-purpose.

Bottomline, I think if we settle on the baseline of all the aspects, then we can define a good generalist role for guardians that make them a viable choice as opposed to aspects. We can also better define or settle on the special
rules and weapons of each aspect.

Emperors Faithful wrote:No. Simply no, sorry. Too changable to...impossible to grasp really. It would make hell for anyone trying to keep track of a tourny where someone can claim bonues and easily ignore disadvantages as no opponent is ever going to comprehend or exploit them, especially not in a tournament. You're just trying to achieve so much with this here, and it sounds fantastic, but I think the foundations are simply too shaky.

My bad, I rushed through the reply and wasn't clear. As far as tournaments and games go, the Army list would have to Specify which craftworld.
My reply was for the friendly gaming enviroment and that the rules are obvious in that you could only claim one craftworld and if you claim the benefits then you must abide by the negatives.

The more accurate answer would be, that if a Craftworld is chosen it must be noted on the Army list.

focusedfire wrote:I think that possibly tying the craftworlds to specific Hero HQ's would be good but the Eldar already have more HQ's than they can use. This could be fixed by making Phoenix Lords operate outside of the FoC.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Like the DH/WH Assassin Operatives?

Either that or like IG Advisors or some such. Maybe something unique that ties a Phoenix Lords presence with a required numder of his Aspect on the battlefield but that he does not occupy a FOC slot. I think that the Phoenix Lords will be easier to define once we find the right mix of AWSRs.

Emperors Faithful wrote:As Eldar they naturally have grace and a swiftness far above that of the Astartes or your normal human. Just saying.

Which should be reflected in the base Guardian stats and is why I propose the WS 4 BS 4 S 3 T 3 W 1 I 4 A 1 Ld 8 Sv 4+ with Fleet. For a basic troop/reservist, that is a darn good profile. Just equipp the basic Guardians with Range 18" Lasblasters and Storms pretty much as they are now and you have a solid basic troop unit that will become quite impressive when used with warlock and holo-wargear. (maybe too impressive but if so it can be balanced by cost)

Mahtamori wrote:
If we are going to go by fluff to assign KP restrictions, etc, then I'd propose that Guardian units and Farseers be assigned the limitations, while the aspect warriors on the other hand are the ones expected to make the actual sacrifices.
In either case, in games that does not have KP, you'll be looking at Eldar being significantly better, since the units with the KP punishments would have to be better to merit those punishments (remember that assigning values based entirely on description does not work! The rules and costs are there to make it a game, so arbitrarily saying unit X should cost twice as much since they are rare will just make unit X significantly worse and none would use it)
In games that do have KP, on the other hand, Eldar lists with these units are a liability. The units will be used restrictively and players who keep the costs in mind will avoid putting them at risk since an otherwise even battle might go against them if they lost the wrong unit - not from a tactical stand point but simply because the rules say "you lost that unit, therefore you lose".

I must say that I much prefer limiting the number of each aspect you are allowed to field, and I really think it can be combined with the concept of not having craftworld specific rules. I would rather work with this than assigning KP penalties.

1)I think that you and I have a fundament difference of opinion on Army structure and how units are fielded. To me, your view on Aspects would mean that all Eldar armies would be Biel-Tan because Aspects are so common. My view is that they are rare/limited in number because:
A)The fluff describes artisan paths as common while seer paths and the warrior paths are more rare.
B)The Wariors and Seers are consrantly at war which means lives lost in battle
C)The time it takes to become an Aspect Warrior.

2)I think that there is a major miscommunication here on the KP. Now I don't feel that they have to be better because of the rule, they will be better because of the rule. In fact they may become too good and have to be restricted as unique. I will explain at the end of my post. Suffice it to say, that I think that I have come up with a way to make all builds viable while reducing the Spam monster

3)I prefered the first set of rules, simply because everyone could grasp what was being done. I think that my latest proposal is the most effective but will again be dismissed because people aren't looking at the big picture but rather at the restrictions.

Mahtamori wrote:By the way, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the next codex gave Shuriken weaponry rending. How do you feel about that?

It seems in keeping with the rampant poison romours for the DE, but not sure if I believe such would happen. Traditionally GW has been very stingey about giving any army bit the SMs Rending. On the other hand, Pervasive rending would be a sloppy half-a$$ed quick fix for the Eldar and we all know how GW likes sloppy half-a$$ed fixes for xenos armies. .

Personally, I can see it on Shuricannons but not on the catapults or pistols. If they do give the Shuricannons Rending then the S 6 theme on Eldar weapons will need to be changed or ROF will need adapting to prevent the Shuricannon from becoming a no-brainer default choice.

Mahtamori wrote:Parkour would be "move through cover" or "ignore difficult terrain" That's what Harlequins do
Parkour is not a very fast way of getting from point A to point B, it's rather an elegant and fun way of taking the scenic route. The running rule would rather be the Eldar being significantly better at rushing, bursts of speed. While it does make sense in a way of the ranged aspects or even the jump infantry getting it, for when you absolutely must get as far as possible, the utility of the ability is far diminished if applied to units that would rather not get into melee. They can still run.
For Storm Guardians, Scorpions and Banshees, however, every inch will likely count when trying to charge someone they don't want to get charged by.

From my time in cross country running, I can say that the Pakur analogy was a good one. There is a difference between sprinting on the track or football field and sprinting across natural country side with all of its little imperfections. My time in the military tells me that such running becomes more difficult with an enemy chasing/trying to kill you. Experience and training makes a difference in such situations.

Mahtamori wrote:Exactly! The reason why they seldom get out of the transport, as I see it, are thus:
1. If you lose the Farseer you lose a great part of your force multiplier. You already get punished enough!
2. You don't need to get out of the vehicle. The Warlock squad is out there and you are likely inside what you're trying to Fortune and in range of what you're trying to Doom.

A fix is to make Warlocks retinue, and limited in number. Say 1-3. This does mean that Eldar need a way of dealing with MCs that isn't Fire Dragons, though. Possibly even requiring Doom to have LOS.

So, in essence, return to a pre-Ulthwe seer council codex because some of the craftworld specific units are to powerful without restrictions. If you look there is a pattern of no-brainer units that emerged in this last Eldar codex where they tried to incorporate some of the Craftworld units.

1)The Ulthwe- Seer councils and Eldrad
2)Biel-Tan- Dire Avengers and Fire Dragons
3)Saim Hann- Larger Guardian Jetbike squadrons and Jetseers

These units without the craftworld restrictions they were designed for are getting used in unfluffy ways that have pretty much limited the Eldar to 2 competitive builds. This is why I advocate the Craftworlds, they provide the balance and structure need for a greater variety of lists.

Oh well, check the end of this post and I will try to explain the strengths of my current proposed idea.

Mahtomori wrote:I played Ulthwé in 3rd edition, which is why I currently have so many useless models. Ulthwé were more or less vanilla Eldar with two upgraded Guardians and one upgraded Farseer council. Not focused at all. The other craftworlds went to lengths removing Guardians from Troop and putting useful troops there.
Ulthwé is also generally the standard army GW use to portray Eldar I've found. It is the Eldar armies for Dawn of War campaigns, for instance.

Funny, For a while, I saw Biel-Tan as the Standard Eldar army that GW used to push the model line, then it was Saim Hann at another point. I'm not arguing what it might be currently, just saying that it might either be a matter of personal perspective or GW cycling the armies to push different part of the model line at different times. As far as DoW goes??? You talking I or II? My DoW I Starte with an Alaitoc or Iyanden theme for some reason. DoW II I don't own and have no interest due to the feedback from reliable sources. Only thing I am missing on DoW I is the Dires over Chronos module and a true gaming PC to play it on.

Mahtamori wrote:As I've currently got the Dark Reapers depicted in my fandex article is essentially: +relentless and +ignore cover saves. Then I've tried to remake the exarch powers to provide bonuses to the squad rather than selfishly to himself only.
While I do agree with Slow and Purposeful as a concept, it is a bit awkward in game since you decide whether to shoot in the movement phase and then roll for distance moved. If it comes to worse, some people may argue "you moved full distance, no shooting!". Of course, there are worse examples of GW canon, so I suppose I shouldn't worry too much.

I do think that the Dark Reapers need some way of getting Ignore Cover save, though. Either base or through exarch. That's what kills them atm and what makes the exarch so bloody good. Anything they shoot at on 5th edition tables will be in cover.

The S & P rule might be a little trickey but would fit unless they give the Dark reapers a good Inv save. If that happened then just straight Slow and pprpuseful to keep them balanced.

Now,I agree about a unit wide rule that the Exarch conveys. Crack shot could be good if it is changed to a minus to the cover save as opposed to ignoring cover.

Mahtomori wrote:

focusedfire wrote:As to the correcting the FD spam, Again I ask you to consider the +1 KP for full sqauds that have the ability to split in-game.

Could you elaborate? I feel my automatic reply would be "each separate squad should be as many KP as the FOC slot would have them be"

Will elaborate at bottom of this post.

Gorechild wrote:I wasn't suggesting skilled rider for a jetbikes, only the ones we intended to give fast but few to.

As far as Reapers go I think S+P is a good decision. Maybe increase their strength to 7 so that they have a bit more punch Vs Transports. Keeping their range and AP. Their point cost is too high, if it was lower they wouldnt really need a change, but as were on the topic I'll explain my views. I think there should be another competitive alternative to the Tempest launcher for the earch and they need exarch powers that benefit the whole unit rather than just the exarch. I think making their weapons blast is a bad decision, they should be rainged anti MEQ not ranged anti GEQ, If we are sticking with our previous idea for giving warp spiders small blasts i dont think it is needed for another aspect.

Sorry its so brief, I couldnt be bothered to type out the whole wall of text again.

1)Ah, sorry. I misunderstood your post mentioning the Jetbikes

2)I think that all Eldar players are in agreement about the Exarch powers benefitting the whole unit, though some will need to be toned down in some cases(Crack shot reduces cover instead of removing it).

3)I agree that the Reaper Laucher needs re-work or that the Reapers need other options, but to whatI am unsure. I do know that GW will never give cover denying long range anti SM weapons to any army but the SMs.

4)To bad about the post, it has happened to me way too many times, so I can empathize with your annoyance.

DAaddict wrote:*(snip)A whole bunch of stuff that I mostly agree with(snip)*

Bottomline, I think if we settle on the baseline of all the aspects, then define a good generalist role for guardians that make them a viable choice as opposed to aspects. We can also better define or settle on the special
rules and weapons of each aspect.

Love the whole post, just want to suggest a shift in perspective. I have been working from the PoV that the Guardians are the general baseline. If a generalist Aspect catagory was added then the base stats I've been proposing would be something like this i.

Guardians & Storms: WS 4 BS 4 S 3 T 3 W 1 I 4 A 1 Ld 8 Sv 4+

Scorps & Banshees: WS 5 BS 4 S 3 T3 W 1 I 5 A2 Ld9 Sv 3+ to 4+

Dark Reapers, Fire Dragons: WS 4 BS 5 S 3 T3 W 1 I 5 A1 Ld9 Sv 3+ to 4+

Dire Avengers, Swooping Hawks, Warp Spiders: WS 4 BS 4 S 3 T3 W 1 I 5 A2 Ld9 Sv 4+


@Everyone, It has come to my attention that I may not have been clear with where I was going with the +1KP rule. This is because the concept is an evolving one. I am going to attempt to explain what I am currently proposing.

1)Eldar aspects taken at min unit strength are 1KP
2)Eldar Aspects taken above min Strength are worth 2KP, but the unit can combat squad(Split into two units) after the game has started
3)These units will have Access to the Holo-Simulcrums(Don't quite know how this will work yet. Will it add a wound to a profile, Be represented by extra models on the table, or become an cover/invulnerable save? Still have to figure out which is best.)
4)Units will be able to split while disembarking. Example-Wave Serp has 8 FD inside. 4 of the FD may disembark at the beginning of the movement phase and the other 4 will remain inside as theWave Serpent moves off.(Should second mini-squad get to disembark after the Wave Serp moves?)
5)Exarch abilities will only apply to the mini-squad that he is attached to. The other mini-squad has basic rules unless joined by PL.(Or we give the Aspects the ability to buy an additional Exarch)
6)Once Squads have split they may not reform

Am trying to decide if these units should be made unique in order to insure that they don't get spammed and to encourage the Ranged/ close combat unit tag-team tactics that are how the Eldar are supposed fight or will letting people have unrestricted access work. Experience tells me that they need to be restricted in access, especially as this makes multiple small squads cheaper.

Possible benefits of this idea:
reduces Spamming
Reduces the number of transports per unit fielded

Possible Concerns:
Might have opposite effect and increase reliance on mechdar and spammed units

Question:
Should units be limited to unique for balance?

What have we agreed on so far? Let's see if I can get something out of it... I will go by a rough consensus. I apologise before hand if I write something as agreed on or merely a proposal and you, dear reader, does not think that would be so. Additionally, I've been extremely conservative and tried to take only ideas which have received positive feedback.

Army-wide special rules or common rules.
* All models that move as infantry are Fleet of Foot
* All aspect warriors which move as jump infantry or jetbikes may re-roll difficult terrain tests
* All aspect warriors may roll an extra D6 and choose the highest when determining how far they may run
* All squads are purchased base number of troops plus a squad leader (exarch or warlock)

Minor proposal: instead of defining each rule which would apply to aspect warriors, or naming a new rule "fast but few", how about simply defining the rule as "Aspect Warrior"?

Statlines
* Guardian level troops have WS and BS of 4 with armour save 4+.
* Aspect Warriors have their statline improved by +1 BS or WS depending on if they are ranged or CC as well as +1 Ld.

Statline proposal
* Aspect Warriors that are CC oriented receive an extra attack as well, DAaddict page 12

HQ
* Phoenix Lords have all got Force Fields or Battle Fate.
* Avatar also exude a infinite range Stubborn aura.
* A Farseer's Mind War only allow invulnerable saves, not cover saves.

HQ proposals
* Autarchs additionally allow units entering from reserve to enter from any non-hostile table edge, Gorechild page 6
* A Farseer's Eldritch Storm changed to become anti-deep striking mechanic, Mahtamori page 8
* A Farseer's Mind War need to become more reliable for at least the first wound, several posters
* Avatar gain +2 toughness, Gorechild page 8
* Warlock unit changed to retinue, Mahtamori page ?
* Avatar able to bathe everyone within melee range in fire for S4 hits once per assault phase, Mahtamori page 8

Elite
* Fire Dragons, aside from needing to be discouraged from being kamikaze, are fine. (?)
* Striking Scorpions have not been properly discussed.
* Wraithguard have not been properly discussed.
* Banshees have not been touched, but are agreed that they need some way of assaulting after disembarking
* Harlequins are left to DE codex to decide

Troops
* Guardian Defenders receive defensive grenades as part of their price
* Guardian Storms receive plasma grenades as part of their price
* Guardian Defenders receive additional platforms for every 5 or 10 Guardians added to them.
* Rangers simply have a price drop by a few points
* Dire Avengers have not been properly discussed.

Troop proposals
* Guardian Storms be armed with chain swords (+1 strength), focusedfire page 2
* Guardian Defenders be armed with rapid fire version of shuriken catapult (18" or 24"), several posters

Fast Attack
* Swooping Hawks have their weapons changed to plasma weapons. Lowered AP.
* Warp Spiders Deathspinners change from Assault 2 to Assault 1 Template (blast or flame?) which leaves the hit unit in difficult and dangerous terrain until the next time the models are moved.
* Vypers have not been properly discussed.
* Shining Spears lances change so that power weapon status is not conditional on assaulting.

Fast Attack proposals
* Warp Spiders gain rending, Mahtamori page 5
* Warp Spiders gain an ability to reduce the risks of deep striking, focusedfire page 6
* War Walkers moved to Fast Attack, several posters
* Swooping Hawks allowing re-rolled hits on any unit within 12" of the Hawks, Captain Avatar page 6

Heavy Support
* Falcons are moved to be dedicated transports.
* Fire Prism have not been properly discussed.
* Wraithlord now purchases each weapon independently and may carry two Bright Lances without twin-linking them.
* War Walker have not been properly discussed.
* Nightspinner have not been properly discussed.
* Dark Reapers may chose to be Slow and Purposeful for the turn or move as normal.

Heavy Support proposals
* Vehicle upgrade which allow a vehicle to fire an additional normal weapon, Mahtamori page 6

Please note that some " have not been properly discussed." actually mean that they don't need to be discussed since they have escaped the power creep in good shape.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@focusedfire: I found a page describing what craftworlds are used for Dawn of War series.
Biel-Tan (Dawn of War)
Ulthwé (Winter Assault, Dark Crusade, Soulstorm, Dawn of War II)
Note that all are lead by a Farseer, so a Farseer does not signify that the craftworld is Ulthwé. I just want to hint this for any craftworld-specific discussions

Ok, so a squad that can split is +1KP. That I can live with, but there's a few concerns:
1. I think all squads should have an exarch unless the exarch is killed, even the mini-squads.
2. There should be a minimum size to the squads that are split.
3. Only squads large enough to split should give extra KP.
This all leads me to go back to the concept of purchasing, what is essentially two different unit for one FOC slot.

As for the exarch powers. It's perfectly fine to bake some exarch powers straight into the unit, but I think we should leave the exarchs with at least one power which goes away if the exarch is killed. This power could be an option, or we could have a mandatory power and an optional one.

For instance.
Swooping Hawks basic SR set: Fleet, Aspect Warrior, Intercept and Jump Infantry
Swooping Hawk exarch: Skyleap/re-deploy (with some sort of force multiplier as optional - target-painter-esque)
Dark Reaper basic SR set: optional S+P*, Fleet, Aspect Warrior
Dark Reaper exarch: squad ignore cover save (with fast shot as potential optional)

* Can we name this Path of the Reaper?

Mahtamori wrote:What have we agreed on so far? Let's see if I can get something out of it... I will go by a rough consensus. I apologise before hand if I write something as agreed on or merely a proposal and you, dear reader, does not think that would be so. Additionally, I've been extremely conservative and tried to take only ideas which have received positive feedback.

Army-wide special rules or common rules.
* All models that move as infantry are Fleet of Foot
* All aspect warriors which move as jump infantry or jetbikes may re-roll difficult terrain tests
* All aspect warriors may roll an extra D6 and choose the highest when determining how far they may run
* All squads are purchased base number of troops plus a squad leader (exarch or warlock)

Minor proposal: instead of defining each rule which would apply to aspect warriors, or naming a new rule "fast but few", how about simply defining the rule as "Aspect Warrior"?

Agree with all of these though i can't see the point of number four.

Mahtamori wrote:
Statlines
* Guardian level troops have WS and BS of 4 with armour save 4+.
* Aspect Warriors have their statline improved by +1 BS or WS depending on if they are ranged or CC as well as +1 Ld.

Statline proposal
* Aspect Warriors that are CC oriented receive an extra attack as well, DAaddict page 12

Agree with all of these though im not sure if the extra attack would make these OP.

Mahtamori wrote:
HQ
* Phoenix Lords have all got Force Fields or Battle Destiny.
* Avatar also exude a infinite range Stubborn aura.
* A Farseer's Mind War only allow invulnerable saves, not cover saves.

I haven't read all of the thread so im not sure what you mean by battle destiny though i think the others are good ideas.

Mahtamori wrote:
HQ proposals
* Autarchs additionally allow units entering from reserve to enter from any non-hostile table edge, Gorechild page 6
* A Farseer's Eldritch Storm changed to become anti-deep striking mechanic, Mahtamori page 8
* A Farseer's Mind War need to become more reliable for at least the first wound, several posters
* Avatar gain +2 toughness, Gorechild page 8
* Warlock unit changed to retinue, Mahtamori page ?
* Avatar able to bathe everyone within melee range in fire for S4 hits once per assault phase, Mahtamori page 8

I agree with all of these apart from the eldritch storm idea. I think it's an ok idea but should be an attack too, but with a better strengnth. How about:

Range: 18" S: 4 AP: - Large blast, pinning, rending

If any enemy unit deep strikes within 12" of the unit affected by eldritch storm the turn after then it must immediatly take a dangerous terrain test.

I also had a different idea for the avatar one in which all units within 6" re-rolls failed rolls to hit in CC, to represent a battle fury of some sorts. Though this idea is a good idea, though it should be +1S, otherwise itd be useless for units with S4 (even though that's not many)

Mahtamori wrote:
Elite
* Fire Dragons, aside from needing to be discouraged from being kamikaze, are fine. (?)
* Striking Scorpions have not been properly discussed.
* Wraithguard have not been properly discussed.
* Banshees have not been touched, but are agreed that they need some way of assaulting after disembarking
* Harlequins are left to DE codex to decide

I think perhaps a 3+ armour save for fire dragons. Scorps are fine as they are imo. Wraithguard are fine as well, though perhaps a points decrease. How about a special rule for banshees, something like this:

Unparreleled agility: Howling Banshees posses inhuman agility that gives them a great advantage on the battlefield. Howling banshee units have the move through cover USR, cannot be pinned and can always assualt, even after they have disembarked etc...

Mahtamori wrote:
Troops
* Guardian Defenders receive defensive grenades as part of their price
* Guardian Storms receive plasma grenades as part of their price
* Guardian Defenders receive additional platforms for every 5 or 10 Guardians added to them.
* Rangers simply have a price drop by a few points
* Dire Avengers have not been properly discussed.

Troop proposals
* Guardian Storms be armed with chain swords (+1 strength), focusedfire page 2
* Guardian Defenders be armed with rapid fire version of shuriken catapult (18" or 24"), several posters

I agree with the grenade additions and the platform additions, and the points decrease for rangers. I think storm guardians should be given furious charge, (not sure what you mean by focussed fire) and im not sure about the guardian weapons, as isn't a souped-up catapault what the avenger shruiken catapault is? Perhaps as a weapon uprgread, i.e. guardians may be given [name] shruiken catapaults for +Xpts.

Mahtamori wrote:
Fast Attack
* Swooping Hawks have their weapons changed to plasma weapons. Lowered AP.
* Warp Spiders Deathspinners change from Assault 2 to Assault 1 Template (blast or flame?) which leaves the hit unit in difficult and dangerous terrain until the next time the models are moved.
* Vypers have not been properly discussed.
* Shining Spears lances change so that power weapon status is not conditional on assaulting.

Fast Attack proposals
* Warp Spiders gain rending, Mahtamori page 5
* Warp Spiders gain an ability to reduce the risks of deep striking, focusedfire page 6
* War Walkers moved to Fast Attack, several posters
* Swooping Hawks allowing re-rolled hits on any unit within 12" of the Hawks, Captain Avatar page 6

Yes, lasblasters should be lowered to AP3. I disagree with the warp spider weapon change, i like them as they are, though giving them rending isn't a bad idea. I think the cost of vypers should be lowered slightly, and the shining spears idea is a definite, i also think they should have 2 attacks. Agree with the war walkers.

Mahtamori wrote:
Heavy Support
* Falcons are moved to be dedicated transports.
* Fire Prism have not been properly discussed.
* Wraithlord now purchases each weapon independently and may carry two Bright Lances without twin-linking them.
* War Walker have not been properly discussed.
* Nightspinner have not been properly discussed.
* Dark Reapers may chose to be Slow and Purposeful for the turn or move as normal.

Heavy Support proposals
* Vehicle upgrade which allow a vehicle to fire an additional normal weapon, Mahtamori page 6

Agree with falcon idea. Agree with wraithlord idea and they should also be given 3 attacks, at least, if not 4. Not a bad idea for Reapers either. Vehicle upgrade good too. I also think that all eldar vehicles should have higher BS.

Thanks for reading my ideas/opinions, i know there's a lot of them!

I chose the wrong word, Battle Destiny = Battle Fate (Eldar 4th edition codex page 55, Asurmen entry)

@Mahtamori- I am going to wait on replying to the list of what is agreed upon, because I want to get feed back on the Few rule.

I will say that when assigning credit for rules, that you seemed to have skipped page 3 when Powerguy, Nathan, you and myself were hashing things out. There is a lot of what was later agreed upon introduced on that Page.

You also, left out the Venom/Vyper Assault transports that I inist upon.

As to the name for the Eldar AWSR, I like either Fast but Few or the Path of the Eldar. There is a problem with using "Path of the Eldar" or your proposed "Aspect Warrior" in that it could be confusing due to all of the fluff that people would try to interpret as rules.
So we are back with Fast but Few. Seriously, I like the "Fast but Few" name because it is simple, descriptive and doesn't cause confusion.

Now, concerning the Few portion of the Rule, I think that the squad splitting needs to be test played at the 6 through 10 man strength levels in order to decide(Currently I like the idea of two FD units at 3 strong, if someone wants to get his units killed and sacrifice the KPs, let 'em).
I also feel that the KP penalty needs to be there whether they Split the Squad or not. They are still taking warriors that are almost irreplaceable if they lose their lives(Basically, their lives are not any less important whether they are split or not).

About the differences between your proposed purchasing 2 units per FOC slot and my proposed squad splitting...... My proposed rule has an organic balancing mechanism that actively discourages attempts to exploit the rule, while to do what you propose there would have to be a paragraph of rules added to balance against the possibility of exploitation and to explain that these units cost an extra KP, unless I am missing something.
I have really tried to compromise to give you what you want on this rule, but this is as far as I can go on the rule itself. I might be willing to compromise on the Craftworld idea to just being Hero HQs if "The Fast but Few" rule includes the extra KP, Combat Squading and limits the number of available Aspect units(I want to prevent 3 squads of FD splitting into 6 mini-squads ).

Well, it was an attempt Most things seemed to happen on page 2-6, and I might've missed something. Venom-Vyper I skipped since a lot of people were sceptical (and since I oddly didn't make a transport section in the list)

Feel free to fill in the gaps.

Here are some of my 2c.

I like the Idea of Venom Transports- but only for harlequins. As a nod to the dex where they were seen.

I think that the Wave Serpent should be allowed to exchange its tl shuriken catapult for a front access ramp for a certain number of points, 10 sounds reasonable. (read NOT an assault ramp, but just conferring an ability to deploy from the front of the tank. instead of only the rear

I would also like to see the cost of upgrade warlocks lowered. Let guardian squads and guardian jetbike squads have cheaper warlocks. A general price reduction would make council's way too good.

let Master Strategist re roll outflank rolls as well as +1 to reserve rolls.

I think these would all be not very convoluted way of improving a few units, and looks reasonable to me!

First off, good effort to Mahtamori for condensing everything we discussed so well

Army-wide special rules or common rules.
* All models that move as infantry are Fleet of Foot
* All aspect warriors which move as jump infantry or jetbikes may re-roll difficult terrain tests
* All aspect warriors may roll an extra D6 and choose the highest when determining how far they may run
* All squads are purchased base number of troops plus a squad leader (exarch or warlock)

Point 1- Agreed 100%
Point 2- Agreed 100%
Point 3- I dont see why reapers would need it, but just for simplicities sake, it works well
Point 4- I like this alot, it will raise the point cost by forcing the exarch + powers to be taken, so they are ess likely to be used as throw away units.

Statlines
* Guardian level troops have WS and BS of 4 with armour save 4+.
* Aspect Warriors have their statline improved by +1 BS or WS depending on if they are ranged or CC as well as +1 Ld.

Statline proposal
* Aspect Warriors that are CC oriented receive an extra attack as well, DAaddict page 12

What are guardian level troops? everything ecept Avengers? I'm not sure about 4+ armour, but wont press the point if everyone else is fine with it.
+1 attack I think is a good decision, points can be adjusted accordingly if people see it as OP.

HQ
* Phoenix Lords have all got Force Fields or Battle Fate.
* Avatar also exude a infinite range Stubborn aura.
* A Farseer's Mind War only allow invulnerable saves, not cover saves.

Agreed 100%

HQ proposals
* Autarchs additionally allow units entering from reserve to enter from any non-hostile table edge, Gorechild page 6
* A Farseer's Eldritch Storm changed to become anti-deep striking mechanic, Mahtamori page 8
* A Farseer's Mind War need to become more reliable for at least the first wound, several posters
* Avatar gain +2 toughness, Gorechild page 8
* Warlock unit changed to retinue, Mahtamori page ?
* Avatar able to bathe everyone within melee range in fire for S4 hits once per assault phase, Mahtamori page 8

1st point- agreed (obviously )
2nd point- agreed
3rd point- agreed
4th point- It was more of a complete stat line change to the avatar and upping him to be a CC monster (Thrakka style )
5th point- agreed
6th point- Would realy encourage avatar + Wraithlord combo's as they cant be hurt by S4, but I like it.

Elite
* Fire Dragons, aside from needing to be discouraged from being kamikaze, are fine. (?)
* Striking Scorpions have not been properly discussed.
* Wraithguard have not been properly discussed.
* Banshees have not been touched, but are agreed that they need some way of assaulting after disembarking
* Harlequins are left to DE codex to decide

Spot on

Troops
* Guardian Defenders receive defensive grenades as part of their price
* Guardian Storms receive plasma grenades as part of their price
* Guardian Defenders receive additional platforms for every 5 or 10 Guardians added to them.
* Rangers simply have a price drop by a few points
* Dire Avengers have not been properly discussed.

Agreed with all, I'd lean towards a weapon for every 5 guardians instead of 10 though.

Troop proposals
* Guardian Storms be armed with chain swords (+1 strength), focusedfire page 2
* Guardian Defenders be armed with rapid fire version of shuriken catapult (18" or 24"), several posters

Disagreed with +1 strength, that should be Scorpion territory.
I think rapid fire is good, 24" I see as being best to keep them different from Avengers (with 18" assault 2)

Fast Attack
* Swooping Hawks have their weapons changed to plasma weapons. Lowered AP.
* Warp Spiders Deathspinners change from Assault 2 to Assault 1 Template (blast or flame?) which leaves the hit unit in difficult and dangerous terrain until the next time the models are moved.
* Vypers have not been properly discussed.
* Shining Spears lances change so that power weapon status is not conditional on assaulting.

Point 1- agreed
Point 2- flamers would be good I think, It would have to be low strength AP- I think, that would make the secondary effect (slowing the target unit down) their main use. Otherwise there would be no need for any other anti hoarde, we intended them as harassment units, not to allow them to level a hoard of orks each and every turn.
Points 3+4- Agreed.

Fast Attack proposals
* Warp Spiders gain rending, Mahtamori page 5
* Warp Spiders gain an ability to reduce the risks of deep striking, focusedfire page 6
* War Walkers moved to Fast Attack, several posters
* Swooping Hawks allowing re-rolled hits on any unit within 12" of the Hawks, Captain Avatar page 6

Point 1- possibly, depends on the final decision for the weapon.
Point 2- agreed
Point 3- agreed, make them fast and able to dish out a whole load of shots, but not that durable.
Point 4- Could work, depends on how we finally see the hawks being used

Heavy Support
* Falcons are moved to be dedicated transports.
* Fire Prism have not been properly discussed.
* Wraithlord now purchases each weapon independently and may carry two Bright Lances without twin-linking them.
* War Walker have not been properly discussed.
* Nightspinner have not been properly discussed.
* Dark Reapers may chose to be Slow and Purposeful for the turn or move as normal.

Heavy Support proposals
* Vehicle upgrade which allow a vehicle to fire an additional normal weapon, Mahtamori page 6

1+2- agreed
3- agreed, what about the different wepons (d-cannon's ect), that was never fully discussed.
4,5+6- agreed, just need to look at reaper exarch weapons.

focusedfire wrote: [Dark Reapers, Fire Dragons: WS 4 BS 5 S 3 T3 W 1 I 5 A1 Ld9 Sv 3+ to 4+

How about this for a Dark Reaper fix.

WS 4 BS 5 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv 3+ Reaper Launcher 48" Heavy1 S7 AP3

Exarch

WS 4 BS5 S3 T3 W1 I5 A2 Ld9 Sv 2+ Reaper Launcher, EML or Tempest

Abilities/Options for the squad: Choice of one each turn.

Rapid Fire: RoF of weapon +1

Tank Hunter: +1 AT

I am thinking now the presence of the exarch should bring some morale benefit to the unit but I hesitate to make it Ld 10. Perhaps Stubborn or something like that as benefit of exarch. Kind of like a mini-bonus like the avatar. Now that would put the phoenix lord into a middle ground perhaps a 12" radius stubborn with fearless to his/her aspect.

I think Heavy 2 AP3 is the main reason reapers are good, a reasonably small squad can really dent a 10 man marine in 1 turn, that is why I like them. I think lowering to Heavy 1 kills off a lot of their appeal, as a matter of ballance, maybe S7 is a little much, especially with Tank hunter. maybe a Lascannon style (S9 AP2) weapon for the exarch would be a good option for tank popping.

Another thought on the FOC, Minimum squads and +KP theme:

I know this would be a departure for GW but perhaps make all aspects 0-1 choice much like the Lictors or Biovores are for the tyrannids. Now remove the limit to make the choice 5-30 of a given aspect. Now kind of reverse the IG mega platoon rule. You may split this aspect into as many squads as you would like with a minimum strength of 1. For each squad split, they MUST be lead by an exarch at XX additional cost.

For each exarch/squad chosen, you may purchase a dedicated transport.

Perhaps put a maximum limit of 3 split squads for all but dire avengers but potentially, you could have an elite aspect heavy list that is not all converted to troop slots but also able to field a larger number of aspects (ala biel-tan).

Points and KPs should control abuse of this.

The core problem does remain - Melta weapons in a vehicle-heavy environment just rock. I really don't see a way other than increased cost to limit the value of FDs.

I would approach it this way - if a guardian costs 8 each, and in most armies a meltagun is 10. A dragon base should at least be 18.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorechild wrote:I think Heavy 2 AP3 is the main reason reapers are good, a reasonably small squad can really dent a 10 man marine in 1 turn, that is why I like them. I think lowering to Heavy 1 kills off a lot of their appeal, as a matter of ballance, maybe S7 is a little much, especially with Tank hunter. maybe a Lascannon style (S9 AP2) weapon for the exarch would be a good option for tank popping.

I agree but remember the whole squad has the choice of tank hunter or quick shot. So that S7 AP3 48" 1H weapon will most likely be firing 2 shots every turn.

I struggle with what S it should be but S5 is too underpowered in 5th Ed environment. Albeit you could leave the weapon stats as is but then with quick shot, that means every reaper is putting out 3 shots and now with a ballistic skill of 5 that means 4 regular reapers would be shooting 12 S5 AP3 shots with a probability of 10 hits every turn. Nowadays that would be 8 shots with BS 4 so 4 hits. Give me that and I would be a happy camper. While the Plus to BS and the increase to S7 on the weapon increase the probability of deathdealing, redusing the base ROF to 1 keeps the number of hitting the same.
The S increase is an idea to make the unit a medium/light vehicle threat while retaining its base function of slaughtering marines.

@Gorechild:

Guardian level troops = Storms, Defenders, Jetbike Guardians, War Walkers, Falcons, etc.
Avatar statline = It as late and I couldn't easily sift through all the posts, I knew there were more to it. Could you summarize the statline?
Avatar flame bath = Sort of the point Also works decently with Wraithguard and could work with War Walkers in proximity.
Guardian platforms = Same, I'm leaning towards 1-4 platforms. I'm also leaning towards the platforms being mandatory.
Storm Chainswords = I'm on the fence. I think Scorpions were given +1S from swords going from 3rd to 4th edition simply because they didn't work well with S3.
Warp Spider template = I find flame template is easier to work with, a squad of 10 spiders with dual-spinner exarch is a pain to roll scatter for. S4 Ap- entangling?
War Walkers = These tend to die as soon as someone looks at them. Strength 4 on standard weapons are more or less base line now, except for IG who really shouldn't have a problem killing WW. I think that if they remain heavy, they must no longer be open topped. Moving to Fast Attack enables you to create a walker-themed army.
Wraithlord D-Cannon = Should probably have brought this up under proposals...
Dark Reapers = It's the current point of discussion, read below.

@Dark Reapers:

Tempest Launcher is the big culprit. It's a really awesome weapon, but it is incompatible with the Reaper Launchers in that it's an indirect weapon. Unless the Exarch allows the squad to somehow fire in-direct, the reaper launcher need to have it's barrage (G36") changed to simple template. This does make it deadlier when in direct line of sight, but when not in line of sight makes it unusable which was when Reapers were used in the first place.

As such, the biggest drawback of Dark Reapers (aside from perishing horribly in close combat and being slow as well as not being able to mech, DS, or outflank) is that they suffer immensely from cover. So, here's a suggestion pack:
* Exarch do NOT have Fast Shot or Crack Shot.
* Exarch grants entire squad ignore cover save.
* Dark Reapers may choose at start of each of their movement phase whether to be in fire mode or not. Fire mode implies they are slow but purposeful.
* Tempest Launcher profile rewritten to; S5 AP3 R48, Heavy 1 blast.
* Reaper Launcher profile rewritten to; S5 AP3 R48, Heavy 2.

Point needing discussion is: does this unit really need S6 or Tank Hunter? The chance of killing something with S6 is 0,86 per shot rounded down per reaper, naturally MCs are the exception and vehicles are a wee bit harder to kill. Reapers and Gaurdians would be the cheapest way of placing S6 shots on the table (both units come down at around 20 points per shot, if we assign 1 weapon platform per 5 Guardians, although the more you fill up the Gaurdian unit the cheaper each shot get). The difference being that the Reaper shots would pierce most protection set against it.

I really like the idea of moving the tempest launcher to 48". I think it is good with the S4 Heavy 2 blast though. Or as an alternative weapon/mode, maybe S5 AP3 R48 Heavy 2 Rending.

The reaper launcher is good as is.

I don't think they need higher strengths, as I don't feel that they should be taking out light vehicles or MC too easily. Their targets should be SM, bikes, Necron destroyers, and other T4/5 Sv3+ units.

As for special rules, I agree that the whole unit needs to ignore cover saves (or reduce them by 2? or limit them to 5+ at most?).

I don't see any issue with them just simply having S&P, no need for the special modes. If they aren't going to fire, then they can just run at the (aspect warrior/fast but few) 2d6 pick highest speed to make up for their slower move.

sarukai wrote:I really like the idea of moving the tempest launcher to 48". I think it is good with the S4 Heavy 2 blast though. Or as an alternative weapon/mode, maybe S5 AP3 R48 Heavy 2 Rending.

The reaper launcher is good as is.

I don't think they need higher strengths, as I don't feel that they should be taking out light vehicles or MC too easily. Their targets should be SM, bikes, Necron destroyers, and other T4/5 Sv3+ units.

As for special rules, I agree that the whole unit needs to ignore cover saves (or reduce them by 2? or limit them to 5+ at most?).

I don't see any issue with them just simply having S&P, no need for the special modes. If they aren't going to fire, then they can just run at the (aspect warrior/fast but few) 2d6 pick highest speed to make up for their slower move.

Hey and welcome to this fat lady of a discussion

I really do agree that having higher strength characteristics isn't all that necessary, so we see eye to eye. The reason they should be able to choose whether S&P or not is that when they shoulder their weapons and run, being in difficult terrain is directly opposite of what we're trying to achieve with giving them the mobility.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. Just a bit of mathhammer:

average of d6 = 3.50"
std.dev. of d6 = 1.73"

average of 2d6 pick highest = 4.47"
std.dev. of 2d6 pick highest = 1.42"

So with the fast but few rule you gain about an inch on your runs, and are slightly more consistent about it.

Giving Dark Reapers full S&P means that they're average full run nets them 7.97" instead of "9.5" from the current codex. It's still not too bad in terms of distance run, and can be though of as them always carefully moving forward, and only slinging their guns back and running if they find no targets.

My main reason for suggesting full S&P though is just to simplify their rules, and keep them from getting too good (read "higher point costs"). It's why I'm leery of giving them strength boosts to their guns as well. We're already talking about giving them cover reducing/negating rules, and I just want to make sure that we don't turn them into the new codex's version of Fire Dragons.

Thanks Mahtamori, Now to go over the proposed Agreed upon stuff.

Mahtamori wrote:Army-wide special rules or common rules.
* All models that move as infantry are Fleet of Foot
* All aspect warriors which move as jump infantry or jetbikes may re-roll difficult terrain tests
* All aspect warriors may roll an extra D6 and choose the highest when determining how far they may run
* All squads are purchased base number of troops plus a squad leader (exarch or warlock)

1)Agree
2)Agree
3)Agree
4)Agree because of it being the path GW is taking(Personally think warlock should remain a purchaseable upgrade to guardian squads

Mahtamori wrote:Statlines
* Guardian level troops have WS and BS of 4 with armour save 4+.
* Aspect Warriors have their statline improved by +1 BS or WS depending on if they are ranged or CC as well as +1 Ld.
Statline proposal
* Aspect Warriors that are CC oriented receive an extra attack as well, DAaddict page 12

1)Agree, of course
2)Again agree, of course
3)Agree but am unsure whether or not Shooting Aspects something to equate

HQ
* Phoenix Lords have all got Force Fields or Battle Fate.
* Avatar also exude a infinite range Stubborn aura.
* A Farseer's Mind War only allow invulnerable saves, not cover saves.

1)Give Phoenix Lords the Autarch Forceshield and ability to make one unit of their Aspect scoring will make them close to being worth thier current points values
2)Disagree, Maybe LoS but not infinite range Possibly fearless instead of stubborn(There should be nothing left to strike back if used properly).
3)Agree(this decision by GW really annoyed me)

HQ proposals
* Autarchs additionally allow units entering from reserve to enter from any non-hostile table edge, Gorechild page 6
* A Farseer's Eldritch Storm changed to become anti-deep striking mechanic, Mahtamori page 8
* A Farseer's Mind War need to become more reliable for at least the first wound, several posters
* Avatar gain +2 toughness, Gorechild page 8
* Warlock unit changed to retinue, Mahtamori page ?
* Avatar able to bathe everyone within melee range in fire for S4 hits once per assault phase, Mahtamori page 8

1)Agree(Correction, Was proposed by yours truly on page 3)
2)I want to reserve judgement on this one. As it is, Eldritch Storm was never proposed in a final rule form. I do think it would make a better Overwatch effect than normal shooting attack
3)Agee but would be handled by removing all saves except inv.
4)Disagree, This is in light of my thought that the Wraith lords should be dropped to T 7 and given an inv save of 5+. I believe that the Avatar would be fine with the addition of fleet and maybe needing an additional attack to his current profile.
5)Meh, Don't feel there is much difference or need. Either way is fine
6)Agree

Elite
* Fire Dragons, aside from needing to be discouraged from being kamikaze, are fine. (?)
* Striking Scorpions have not been properly discussed.
* Wraithguard have not been properly discussed.
* Banshees have not been touched, but are agreed that they need some way of assaulting after disembarking
* Harlequins are left to DE codex to decide

1)Agree and disagree, they need restrictions but such should be applied in a general Aspect wide format
2)Agree
3)Agree
4)Agree
5)Agree

Troops
* Guardian Defenders receive defensive grenades as part of their price
* Guardian Storms receive plasma grenades as part of their price
* Guardian Defenders receive additional platforms for every 5 or 10 Guardians added to them.
* Rangers simply have a price drop by a few points
* Dire Avengers have not been properly discussed.

1)Agree
2)Agree
3)Agree with the provision that the unit is limited to 10 Guardians. 20 Guardians make no sense(Though a unit of 20 high initiative WS 4 BS 4 save 4+ models would be somewhat unique, it just doesn't feel like an Eldar unit.
4)Disagree, Rangers need further discussion
5)Agree

Troop proposals
* Guardian Storms be armed with chain swords (+1 strength), focusedfire page 2
* Guardian Defenders be armed with rapid fire version of shuriken catapult (18" or 24"), several posters

1)Not sure anymore. With other changes I feel that it would need playtesting. I will keep it listed as an option.
2)Disagree, Should be Las-blasters. This keeps Eldar mobility while maitaining balance.

Fast Attack
* Swooping Hawks have their weapons changed to plasma weapons. Lowered AP.
* Warp Spiders Deathspinners change from Assault 2 to Assault 1 Template (blast or flame?) which leaves the hit unit in difficult and dangerous terrain until the next time the models are moved.
* Vypers have not been properly discussed.
* Shining Spears lances change so that power weapon status is not conditional on assaulting.

1)Disagree, because the Hawks were never fully settled upon
2)Agree as long as the units size is limited to 6 maximum
3)Agree
4)Both Agree and Disagree. Feel lances should become Plasma with a lower AP and the Lance rule.

Fast Attack proposals
* Warp Spiders gain rending, Mahtamori page 5
* Warp Spiders gain an ability to reduce the risks of deep striking, focusedfire page 6
* War Walkers moved to Fast Attack, several posters
* Swooping Hawks allowing re-rolled hits on any unit within 12" of the Hawks, Captain Avatar page 6

1)Disagree, In light of the other weapon abilities this is OP
2)Agree with the provision that the second jump remains dangerous.
3)Agree, but weapons may need to become twin-linked or something else will have to be done to keep this from being OP.
4)Absolutely Agree

Heavy Support
* Falcons are moved to be dedicated transports.
* Fire Prism have not been properly discussed.
* Wraithlord now purchases each weapon independently and may carry two Bright Lances without twin-linking them.
* War Walker have not been properly discussed.
* Nightspinner have not been properly discussed.
* Dark Reapers may chose to be Slow and Purposeful for the turn or move as normal.

Heavy Support proposals
* Vehicle upgrade which allow a vehicle to fire an additional normal weapon, Mahtamori page 6

1)Falcons need a full discussion. Will not agree untill such discussion.
2)Agree
3)Agree but they also need to carry Support weapons like the D-Cannon. This will mean a real discussion as opposed to the crazy ideas I posted to get the thread started.
4)Agree that the War walkers need discussing
5)Do not have the Night Spinner rules so will need help when it comes time to discuss them.
6)Agree on the Reapers for obvious reasons

akaean wrote:Here are some of my 2c.

I like the Idea of Venom Transports- but only for harlequins. As a nod to the dex where they were seen.

I think that the Wave Serpent should be allowed to exchange its tl shuriken catapult for a front access ramp for a certain number of points, 10 sounds reasonable. (read NOT an assault ramp, but just conferring an ability to deploy from the front of the tank. instead of only the rear

I would also like to see the cost of upgrade warlocks lowered. Let guardian squads and guardian jetbike squads have cheaper warlocks. A general price reduction would make council's way too good.

let Master Strategist re roll outflank rolls as well as +1 to reserve rolls.

I think these would all be not very convoluted way of improving a few units, and looks reasonable to me!

I pretty much agree, with some tweaks:

1)Vyper/Venoms should be the dedicated transports available for most of the assault aspects, definitely the Banshees and Harlequins. I am on the fence about the Scorpions, If they get the venoms then they would have to move to fast attack, because they would give the Venoms the Scout rule and maybe infiltrate. That would need serious balancing measures to prevent them from becoming OP.

2)I see what you are getting at with the Wave Serpents but I feel that with a minor points adjustment that they will be fine as is. If the venom get brought in, there won't be much need for the ramp. Now if you are concerned about the Shooty Aspects getting close enough, I suggest a push for taller flight stands so that the units deploy a little under the wave serp. I've also thought about vectored thrusters giving a turn to face move after the unit has dis-embarked.

3)Here I disagree, The warlocks are just fine. They may even have to increase in cost with some of the abilities they may gain and because the Seer Council needs to be reigned in a bit.

4)I think we all agree with the Autarch getting the re-roll to out flank and +1 to reserves rolls. It is the reserves may come in from any non-enemy board edge that a lot of us are liking and looking at a way to balance. Might have to just make that an Alaitoc Commander Special ability.

DAaddict wrote:

focusedfire wrote: Dark Reapers, Fire Dragons: WS 4 BS 5 S 3 T3 W 1 I 5 A1 Ld9 Sv 3+ to 4+

How about this for a Dark Reaper fix.

WS 4 BS 5 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv 3+ Reaper Launcher 48" Heavy1 S7 AP3

Exarch

WS 4 BS5 S3 T3 W1 I5 A2 Ld9 Sv 2+ Reaper Launcher, EML or Tempest

Abilities/Options for the squad: Choice of one each turn.

Rapid Fire: RoF of weapon +1

Tank Hunter: +1 AT

I am thinking now the presence of the exarch should bring some morale benefit to the unit but I hesitate to make it Ld 10. Perhaps Stubborn or something like that as benefit of exarch. Kind of like a mini-bonus like the avatar. Now that would put the phoenix lord into a middle ground perhaps a 12" radius stubborn with fearless to his/her aspect.

I would like to counter-propose this:

Dark Reaper

WS 4 BS 5 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv 3+
Reaper Launcher-
Krak-Range 48" S6 AP3 Heavy 1
Frag-Range 48" S3 AP6 Heavy 1, Blast

Exarch

WS 4 BS6 S3 T3 W1 I5 A2 Ld9 Sv 3+ Reaper Launcher, EML or Tempest(Tempest becomes Reaper Launch with heavy 2 profile.)

Exarch conveys the Crack shot ability(-1 to cover save) to the unit and unit of 6 can split into two seperate squads.

Unit size: Exarch + 2-5 Reapers

Exarch may take Rapid fire ability.


I feel that this would be a nice middle point to where the unit is now. The idea is not complete due to lack of wargear but feel that Holo projectors would work nice. Will discuss more after you and others comment.

Hmm, so...

In need of renewed discussion:
* Falcon
* Swooping Hawk
* Wraithlord
* Support Weapon Platform (I omitted this, but in light of the reasons for Wraithlord discussion, these need to tag along there)
* Avatar
* Baharroth (Please note that Battle Fate and Force Field provide the same benefits)
* Rangers

Warlock as retinue: the big difference here is two-fold; it makes the Farseer more difficult to kill, while it disallow you to run a council with the Farseer inside a gravtank somewhere. I think the main point of the proposal is to make larger restrictions on the number of Warlocks available in a council. I'd say 3 is a good magic number.

Guardian unit size: Yeah, with an elite statline, 10 Guardians should be plenty enough!

Guardian Defenders weapons: *cringes* oh, the amount of models with incorrect weapons! Fully obsoleting nearly all of a model range is actually something that'll be considered.

Shining Spear lances: they are actually Lancing, but their AP is a bit high. Then again, their range is so very short short.

Rending Spiders: It's a proposal I made when they weren't template. If all spinner weapons are normalized to suit the newest Nightspinner, then they should be rending and entangling in some way, but probably not as high strength as they are now.

War Walkers: At the moment what keeps them in line is that they blow up real easy. If you remove a weapon from them, they become nothing but slow Vypers in the fast attack section. It's a bit of an awkward position, but the Heavy section needs to be spread a bit so a move is good for them.

Nightspinner: Well... can't really give the rules out, can we? Suffice to say, the consensus I've seen on other forums regarding it is "it's a nice and interesting addition, but it was introduced without giving 5th edition discount on price and it seems like a test unit for something else". It's tactical applications are tremendous, but it loses on killing power to the Fire Prism unless you have a really large table or a lot of terrain blocking the Fire Prism's line of sight.

Dark Reapers: So their launchers change to mini-EML. This changes the unit completely into an anti-GEQ unit. S6 is generally too weak to take on anything but transports, and one shot is unreliable against marines even if it's 2x2+ needed to kill, there's simply not enough killing potential. 5-6 S3 blasts, on the other hand, can put a real dent in an IG blob.
While I think the proposal is very interesting, and that the unit would have it's uses, I do not think entirely changing their main use is a good thing. There's simply too few armies where those weapons would be a big enough threat.

Mahtamori wrote:Hmm, so...

In need of renewed discussion:
* Falcon
* Swooping Hawk
* Wraithlord
* Support Weapon Platform (I omitted this, but in light of the reasons for Wraithlord discussion, these need to tag along there)
* Avatar
* Baharroth (Please note that Battle Fate and Force Field provide the same benefits)
* Rangers

Pretty much right, Spiders might end up back in the discussion loop as the units shake out. I think that it is safe to say that all the Aspects will be discussed after the AWSRs are agreed upon and finalized.

Mahtamori wrote:Warlock as retinue: the big difference here is two-fold; it makes the Farseer more difficult to kill, while it disallow you to run a council with the Farseer inside a gravtank somewhere. I think the main point of the proposal is to make larger restrictions on the number of Warlocks available in a council. I'd say 3 is a good magic number.

Guardian unit size: Yeah, with an elite statline, 10 Guardians should be plenty enough!

Guardian Defenders weapons: *cringes* oh, the amount of models with incorrect weapons! Fully obsoleting nearly all of a model range is actually something that'll be considered.

1)I agree about the Warlocks as retinue but think limiting the squad to six total( 5 warlocks and 1 Farseer) will be a better number.

2)Yay, agreement

3)It is because I see GW doing just such a thing that I proposed it, $$ is a motivator.( I might want to look at those lasblaster and start practicing conversions now ) If such did happen, I wouldn't complain because the unit would be much more effective. Especially with your Holo-simulcrums and possibly my suggestion of squads splitting fire in some manner.

Mahtamori wrote:Shining Spear lances: they are actually Lancing, but their AP is a bit high. Then again, their range is so very short short.

Rending Spiders: It's a proposal I made when they weren't template. If all spinner weapons are normalized to suit the newest Nightspinner, then they should be rending and entangling in some way, but probably not as high strength as they are now.

War Walkers: At the moment what keeps them in line is that they blow up real easy. If you remove a weapon from them, they become nothing but slow Vypers in the fast attack section. It's a bit of an awkward position, but the Heavy section needs to be spread a bit so a move is good for them.

Nightspinner: Well... can't really give the rules out, can we? Suffice to say, the consensus I've seen on other forums regarding it is "it's a nice and interesting addition, but it was introduced without giving 5th edition discount on price and it seems like a test unit for something else". It's tactical applications are tremendous, but it loses on killing power to the Fire Prism unless you have a really large table or a lot of terrain blocking the Fire Prism's line of sight.

1)This is why I think S6 AP1 for the spears isn't OP, the 6" range pretty much means that they have to commit. Spears as monster and Termie hunters really seta a nice mental picture.

2)Warp Spiders would be pretty good with the template, even at the 6 man squad size I proposed. I want the Spiders to be a compliment unit to the Scorpions and Harlequins. I am worried about them becoming too powerful on thier own if given rending. This is my on;y concern about the rending rule for their weapons if they become template.

3)I feel War Walkers are going to be difficult to reset. We are looking at giving them a base BS4 so something may have to be done to limit them. Maybe limit the Squad to 2 WW per.???We will figure it out when we get to them.

4)Nightspinner sounds good for Apoc at least and I'd bet it gets reworked when the next codex comes around. Maybe I will get a peak at the rules soon, thanks for the desciption.

Mahtamori wrote:Dark Reapers: So their launchers change to mini-EML. This changes the unit completely into an anti-GEQ unit. S6 is generally too weak to take on anything but transports, and one shot is unreliable against marines even if it's 2x2+ needed to kill, there's simply not enough killing potential. 5-6 S3 blasts, on the other hand, can put a real dent in an IG blob.
While I think the proposal is very interesting, and that the unit would have it's uses, I do not think entirely changing their main use is a good thing. There's simply too few armies where those weapons would be a big enough threat.

I think you might be considering the Weapon without the Stats and unit size change. Look at the Krak profile versus the current Reapers:

Current = 5x Reapers w/ Heavy 2 Launchers comes to 10 BS 4 S 5 AP 3 Shots, which equals 6.67 hits and 4.44 wounds against MEQ
Proposed=6x Reapers w/ Heavy 1 Launchers comes to 6 BS 5 S 6 AP 3 Shots, Which Equals 5 Hits and 4.167 wounds against MEQ. Then add the -1 to cover and the Squad is just about as effective as MEQ killers but gain a GEQ killing ability(Note this does not include using the proposed Tempset launcher or the Exarchs Rapid fire ability.

I think the Squad will be a bit more expensive, but that they would live up to their rep as the masters of ranged combat.


Just had an idea, it isover OTT but fun to think about. Drum roll please.................................................

Aspect upgrades for vehicles. Swooping Hawk pilots, Dark Reaper Gunners, Scorpion infiltrators.....Just an idea to smile about.

I've only glance red a few pages since I'm not going to read all 13, I've read about half; though most of what I've pulled together for info on what has been discussed are Mahtamori's post on page 12.

Anyway, I'm sure we would agree that some serious shuffling of the FOC for Eldar choices is required? Here's what I was thinking; I'll discuss some reasoning later on to tie it in with fluff.

Furthermore, even though you guys have been discussing it at length, standardized rules that are army wide - no special rules, would probably create the best codex if these were ever taken up. It would give clear and concise RAW and the RAI would be the same as the RAW - as opposed to each unit having random complicated rules in regards to KPs etc.

Pretty much, what I'm trying to say is keep it similar to beerhammer? Balanced, fun to play and most importantly fun to play against.

HQ's

Farseer
Autarch
Pheonix Lords
Avatar

Elites

Fire Dragons
Howling Banshees
Harlequins
Striking Scorpions


Fast Attack

Warp Spiders
Vypers
War Walkers
Shining Spears
Swooping Hawks


Troops

Guardians (Both Variants)
Jetbikes
Dire Avengers
Wraithguard
Rangers


Heavy Support

Dark Reapers
Night Spinner
Falcon
Fire Prism
Wraithlord

There are only a few units that have been shuffled about, most notably War Walkers and Wraithguard. War Walkers were moved because fluff wise; being able to outflank would be attributed to speed - it also evens up the Eldar FOC. Wraithguard were moved to troops - Eldar are a dying race; they need to call upon the Wraithguard more and more often. Wraithguard are good; but being in an Elite slot and high point cost; competing with already all the awesome units there aren't seeing *enough* use.

Thirdly, weapon support platforms are gone from Heavy.

Instead, Guardian defender squads would be able to take 1 Heavy Weapon Support Platform, if they so choose to. Extra points would be spent, and you could not be mounted in a vehicle obviously.

Another unit I'd like to mention are the Vypers. I think being able to trade the back turret for a transport capacity of 6 would alleviate the lack of an open topped fast transport. That said; they would only be purchasable as a dedicated transport for units in the Elite Section. 35pts base? Seems reasonable. For an extra 5-10 points you trade the capacity of 6 for a TL turret that is mounted on the back - bringing them to something similar to a harassing unit and negating their AV10 open topped.

Thirdly, Dark Reapers are stated as having a missile launcher that never really needs to reload because of the way it is made. What strikes me as odd is that they cannot have multiple modes of firing like an EML can, which is undoubtedly a bigger version. Perhaps giving the option to fire either the usual 2 S5 AP 3 shots, which turn into a single small blast template, or a single shot at S8 AP2.

Some changes to Psychic powers for the Farseers is also required; 2 powers base - Spirit stones let you use a 3rd power or a duplicate power. This almost makes them like Eldrad, except Eldrad would now be able to go 3 of the same power or cast up to 4 powers

Every Eldar unit that isn't currently BS4 such as Guardians, Jetbikes and all vehicles barring the Spinner and Prism should be BS4. Aspect warriors being bumped to 5's is very wishful thinking imo; Perhaps if their current points were to remain it would be more feasable. With an increase in Psychic powers; hitting on 2s with rerolls will demolish almost every army.

Shuricats move to 18", Dire Avengers move to 24".

The Falcon can trade the Pulsar for whatever it likes. Both turret weapons on the Falcon are Twinlinked, and it retains it's transport capacity - making it a more viable battletank. It is meant to be our staple battletank, and quite frankly apart from God Falcons, it could be much better. Perhaps doing something similar to the Vypers and trading the passenger space for more firepower - extra guns or bumping it to AV13? Extra shot on all the weapons? Running a fine line here between too much dakka, and finding the sweet spot.

One of the main problems currently with Eldar is the lack of cheaper long range AT, however and this is hard to address. The best solution I can come up with is bumping Bright Lances up to S9; making them more like an 'advanced' lascannon (which they are). With most units now BS4, and the abundance of TL weapons on the above list (Falcons, Vypers) It would change things up a bit.

Swooping Hawks main disadvantage are Lasblasters being S3. Move them to Assault 3, and S4, and they've become a whole lot better.

Wraithlords are a tricky situation - As mentioned at the start of the thread of making them 'Aspect Wraithlords' Currently fluff wise, Wraithlords are powered by the Spirit Stones of Exarch's, which is strange because Exarch's armour has all the previous exarch's, even when a shrine is disbanded, they maintain the army (Read Path of the Warrior and you'll understand the deal with Exarchs)

As it currently stands, I think Wraithlords need to be atleast W4 (5 or 6 would be more befitting however) with a 2+. If they were to be the 'Aspect Wraithlords' multiples of the exarch's weapons would be something to think about? Atleast for shooty aspects? Make them more like vehicles, but with 4 hardpoints? Possible 4 Starcannons. Oh dear.

Something else to mention that I haven't seen here, and tends to pop up in threads like this is Pheonix Lords disciple rule making that unit count as troops, freeing up another FOC slot.

Rangers are good currently, they are just expensive. Lower their points and have them wound on a 3+, or do something similar to Mind War and be able to pick out any model (with the squad). Eldar Rangers make every other races scouts look like Thunderhawks when it comes to being stealthy.

Give Scorpions and Banshees an extra attack each, and bring them closer in line with Harlies. Fire Dragons could also do with FNP; much like Fuegan. In Path of the Warrior they walk through all kinds of burning stuff and are described as very reckless.

Overall, everything could do with being about 25% cheaper (as the crow flies). 18pt Jetbikes, 90-100 point tanks, 12pt rangers +5, 12pts ea for Elites, 25pt Wraithguard etc.

I think that's all I have to say currently.

TLDR: Read my whole post you horrible person who scans for a TLDR.

@focusedfire: I'm actually not comparing your proposed stats to the current Dark Reapers, since there's a reason why no one in their right mind take them for anything but the Tempest Launcher. The problem is that BS5 S6 AP3 Heavy1 shot has a rather high standard deviation and a rather low maximum potential compared to BS5 S5 AP3 Heavy2. Doing some very quick math in my head I also come to the conclusion that the template option is actually worse against most targets except swarms unless they are packed real tight compared to the current launcher.
The rough changes would thus be:
* Unit has become slightly worse at killing MEQ
* Unit has become slightly better at killing transports and has a chance of killing AV12
* Unit has become worse at killing spread GEQ but better at killing them if they are packed very tight.
I'm choosing to ignore SNP and -1 cover since those are factors I think we'd give them in some form regardless of their weapon. Personally, unless the Dark Reapers were a dime a dozen, I'd still never field them if they looked like that. Unlike many units, the Dark Reapers is a unit that must absolutely kill their points to be worth taking.

Regarding aspect upgrades, there are aspect warriors focusing on piloting vehicles, though I forget their name. I think they are currently reserved for the more expensive vehicles, though.

@Sile: Welcome to the discussion. The problem with putting that "read it all" TLDR down there and "I'm not going to read all 13" up on top of the post should be obvious.

FOC: We've already agreed that a reshuffling of the FOC should be avoided.
Standardized USRs: It only gives people something familiar, but the standard USRs are limited in number and limited in application and in general does not work as army rules. Not to mention that the Eldar codex would be the first one published which actually did this. WBB with a discussion on ATSKNF where all units have strength in numbers and the marks of chaos makes a difference, if your synapses get what I'm hinting at
Wraithguard: You do realize it only cost about 5 points per squad to make them troops atm? There's other reasons why they aren't used; too high point cost, too short range, too bad in melee, fearless is a liability for them in current edition, the models are a bit boring, the models are very expensive.
Support weapon platforms: we've not really discussed them so far, but I agree that they are best placed in troop with Guardian Defender foam.
Dark Reapers: Their current weapon isn't described as firing several large missiles like some sort of assault helicopter, it's more of a machine gun where the bullets are replaced with small missiles. A very advanced version of the Bolter weapons, if you will.
Farseers: we've avoided changing too much on these since they currently are very good and effective force multipliers. People just take Eldrad since he's a lot better.
BS increase: you did read the last few pages at least? The most common posters in the thread have all but agreed that an increased statline is desireable. In either case, the thing regarding the tactical advantage, it is sort of a waste re-rolling 2+ when you factor in that there's going to be another unit nearby that's rolling 3+ and that unit probably has a heavier weapon than the aspect warriors.
Shuricats: These will be discussed again.

Falcong: New paragraph! Wohoo! The Pulsar is perhaps the best weapon the Falcon will ever get. It's a 2-shot Brightlance without lancing, a 2-shot krak missile without drawback, or a +2S Star Cannon. Why would you downgrade that? Now, the reason why the tank isn't taken at the moment is still not that it doesn't hit well enough, it is simply that:
* The killing power of a Fire Prism is higher
* It can't shoot more than one awesome weapon per turn - you weren't seriously thinking of having the Falcon stand still, were you?
* A Nightspinner is cheaper and deadlier and easier to place where the enemy won't be able to easily shoot at it
* A Wave Serpent is a better transport, lives longer, doesn't take up a FOC, has a high probability of being scoring without DAVU, and has the same or better amount of fire power - again, you weren't seriously thinking of standing still with an Eldar tank, were you?
In short, it's simply outclassed by the other tanks in every way. It won't be easy fixing this tank, here's the thing: it works pretty well in Apocalypse! Why? It's allowed to shoot two main weapons on the move there!

Lack of cheap AT: Eldar has absolutely no problem with fielding AT, the real problem is that the AT options currently are not very good. Guardians are overpriced and useless, Vypers are overpriced and blow up a lot, War Walkers are very good but need to outflank so won't help on turn one, etc.
Wraithlords: I see people marveling over the tenacity in most battle reports. Their extreme toughness makes them very resilient against everything but strict AT weapons, in which case those weapons aren't shooting at something expensive. It's a point to discuss, but I think more or less what we've agreed on is "they need an inv save crutch" and possibly "they could use a return to A3".
Rangers: We'll discuss them soon.
Scorps and Banshees: That's the current plan.
Fire Dragons: That's not even on the table with most posters. They currently offer a very good return for investment at the moment, so improving them isn't what we're after. We want to target their kamikaze application, not make them more able to survive it.

Blanket point reduction: we want to avoid this, too. General consensus (of course some posters disagree) is that the point costs are about right but that the power return for them is low. Essentially, it's a matter of justifying 8 points for Guardians, not changing the points to suit their current application.

Sorry if this sounded a bit harsh.

Edit: removed an inconvenient smiley

@Sile: Welcome to the discussion. The problem with putting that "read it all" TLDR down there and "I'm not going to read all 13" up on top of the post should be obvious.

FOC: We've already agreed that a reshuffling of the FOC should be avoided.
Standardized USRs: It only gives people something familiar, but the standard USRs are limited in number and limited in application and in general does not work as army rules. Not to mention that the Eldar codex would be the first one published which actually did this. WBB with a discussion on ATSKNF where all units have strength in numbers and the marks of chaos makes a difference, if your synapses get what I'm hinting at
Wraithguard: You do realize it only cost about 5 points per squad to make them troops atm? There's other reasons why they aren't used; too high point cost, too short range, too bad in melee, fearless is a liability for them in current edition, the models are a bit boring, the models are very expensive.
Support weapon platforms: we've not really discussed them so far, but I agree that they are best placed in troop with Guardian Defender foam.
Dark Reapers: Their current weapon isn't described as firing several large missiles like some sort of assault helicopter, it's more of a machine gun where the bullets are replaced with small missiles. A very advanced version of the Bolter weapons, if you will.
Farseers: we've avoided changing too much on these since they currently are very good and effective force multipliers. People just take Eldrad since he's a lot better.
BS increase: you did read the last few pages at least? The most common posters in the thread have all but agreed that an increased statline is desireable. In either case, the thing regarding the tactical advantage, it is sort of a waste re-rolling 2+ when you factor in that there's going to be another unit nearby that's rolling 3+ and that unit probably has a heavier weapon than the aspect warriors.
Shuricats: These will be discussed again.

Falcong: New paragraph! Wohoo! The Pulsar is perhaps the best weapon the Falcon will ever get. It's a 2-shot Brightlance without lancing, a 2-shot krak missile without drawback, or a +2S Star Cannon. Why would you downgrade that? Now, the reason why the tank isn't taken at the moment is still not that it doesn't hit well enough, it is simply that:
* The killing power of a Fire Prism is higher
* It can't shoot more than one awesome weapon per turn - you weren't seriously thinking of having the Falcon stand still, were you?
* A Nightspinner is cheaper and deadlier and easier to place where the enemy won't be able to easily shoot at it
* A Wave Serpent is a better transport, lives longer, doesn't take up a FOC, has a high probability of being scoring without DAVU, and has the same or better amount of fire power - again, you weren't seriously thinking of standing still with an Eldar tank, were you?
In short, it's simply outclassed by the other tanks in every way. It won't be easy fixing this tank, here's the thing: it works pretty well in Apocalypse! Why? It's allowed to shoot two main weapons on the move there!

Lack of cheap AT: Eldar has absolutely no problem with fielding AT, the real problem is that the AT options currently are not very good. Guardians are overpriced and useless, Vypers are overpriced and blow up a lot, War Walkers are very good but need to outflank so won't help on turn one, etc.
Wraithlords: I see people marveling over the tenacity in most battle reports. Their extreme toughness makes them very resilient against everything but strict AT weapons, in which case those weapons aren't shooting at something expensive. It's a point to discuss, but I think more or less what we've agreed on is "they need an inv save crutch" and possibly "they could use a return to A3".
Rangers: We'll discuss them soon.
Scorps and Banshees: That's the current plan.
Fire Dragons: That's not even on the table with most posters. They currently offer a very good return for investment at the moment, so improving them isn't what we're after. We want to target their kamikaze application, not make them more able to survive it.

Blanket point reduction: we want to avoid this, too. General consensus (of course some posters disagree) is that the point costs are about right but that the power return for them is low. Essentially, it's a matter of justifying 8 points for Guardians, not changing the points to suit their current application.

Sorry if this sounded a bit harsh.

Edit: removed an inconvenient smiley

I read the first 5, skipped to the end and saw the summary. Nice spotting the irony though

Anyway; onto some dissection.

RE: Reshuffling the FOC; Part of the problem with Eldar currently is their FOC. How many times have you found yourself having a short on a heavy support slot? The way I saw it, putting them at roughly even # of selection, that gives you more value than changing other units. Currently there are 7 Heavy support and 4 Fast attack. A bit of shuffling to even it up will give more options for lists and prevent codex creep. It can give way to tough combinations, however, codex's are more than likely to get stronger as they bump things up to 5th ed.

Wraithguard's main disadvantage as troops currently is that they aren't maneuverable enough to use their 12" guns to full effect. Moving the current entry to troops will still give them the ability to be mounted in a WS because of the minimum squad size. Currently because you have to take them as 10, and they are slow and only 12"; they are limited to sitting on an objective. 5 as troops will boost their versatility so much more, especially with the added ability to tarpit like champions. Currently as it stands, their ability to instantly kill something on a 6, with Doom giving you the option to reroll any to wound roll and at T6 you can stay in combat forever, as long as there aren't any fists of PW.

I've seen and used the Support platforms, they're not bad, but definitely see much more use with an ablative crew of 10.

The Dark Reapers are described in the codex as using a missile launcher that launches armour piercing missiles, which can be taken to penetrate anything, depending on your definition of armour.

The sole reason why I touched on Farseers is due to the massive abundance of psykers with insane abilities of their own popping up with extreme frequency. Giving them the ability to use an extra power will see them back into the top dog, without making them over the top (ref. Njal Stormcaller)

I've read the stat increase, but I strongly disagree still, solely because currently there is no army with BS5 for troops. BS5 will make things much, much, much too strong. Look at it from GW's perspective - Space Marines are more likely to have BS5 than Eldar in the near future. WS5 would work because you never can have better than a 3+ but the way the shooting mechanic works, hitting on 2's with something like Bladestrom would be much too good. Just my 2c, it is a discussion though. If I'd been in up ins earlier I'd be still against it :p

RE; Falcon; I agree the pulsar is good, I never said get rid of it, just have the option to trade it for another TL weapon. Sometimes to fit in with the Synergy with your list you don't need the pulsar - TBQH on something like a Falcon I'd rather have 2 EMLs and a cannon if it were cheaper. Defensive weapon with rerolls, S4 templates and 3 S6 shots for anti horde, but that perhaps makes them too good, and something everyone wold take as a loadup. Eitherway you can still take a Pulsar on them. The main advantage of a DAVU is by having Holofields and fortune you can soak a lot of heavy weapons fire; every time I've used one they far outlast the wave serpents, which will go down to enough fire.
Just for the record, I always have stones on my tanks

A Wraithlord is tough no doubt about it, but compared to something like a Dread, it is very outclassed. This is because the WL is super vulnerable to Heavy Weapons fire. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen them dropped by a single squad of devastators, and there goes a valuable heavy support slot. Then again I have the misfortune of generally playing tables with low cover so it is hard to get a coversave on a WL. a 5+ invuln would work however, it still remains though.

Fire Dragons are kamikaze by their nature. Partly due to the role that they have to fufill - tank busting with meltas, and the close range that the role entails. It's a unique position in that they are extremely hard to maneuver into a spot in which they will not be open to counter attack. FNP will give them the opportunity to not be blown up, or dying in an explosion. The only role to remove a kamikaze application is adding to their range, but how much and how balanced it would be comes to play. Especially when you factor in the BS5 you'd like to see them with.

Point reductions were merely to bring a new codex inline with the current 5th edition codex's. Don't forget the trend we have seen will be very likely to continue, and being caught with an extremely low model count army, no matter how hard hitting can cause a catastrophic effect.

There is no such thing as being harsh in a discussion. The role a devil's advocate is one that every discussion needs for it to flourish, and even then, having 'yes men' around will lead to unfeasible ideas.

Just my 2c.

@Sile

Well, I as you might've read, both me and focusedfire do agree that moving War Walkers to Fast Attack is a good option, but the implementation of such a move is what we need to work out. Re-shuffling the FOC implies more moves, which is why I reacted. I did propose earlier, and I think it was so early you read it, that Guardians move to Elite, Jetbike Guardians to FA, and the elite aspect warriors move to Troop. I wasn't fully serious, and it was shot down as "unrealistic and breaking against GW's design philosophy", but it's a good example of a re-shuffling

Wraithguards are decent. The problem is that they will likely spend a lot of time losing close combat since they've only got 1 high strength attack each, and T6 MEQ doesn't exactly make them invincible. Fearless and No Retreat will mean they take a lot of casualties, so much in fact that given the squad sizes you can afford they will likely die the moment they lose combat.
We'll need to discuss Wraithguards more in this thread, but so far I've proposed that they count as having powerfists - they are after all 10' constructs capable of carrying weapons which are so heavy a space marine couldn't use them. This means that they are expensive denial troops. Get within 12" and you're in for a world of hurt.

Yeah, each Guardian Defender squad able to purchase a support weapon does the following (I love lists):
* Goes along with the description of Guardians providing fire support
* Provides more reach for Guardians, while centers Defenders around the concept of heavy weapon teams rather than shuricat kamikazies.
* Removes a heavy support option (which is beneficial for the list as a whole) while keeping the product line alive!

Eldar as supreme psychers has taken a hit since 3rd edition, yes, but we still need to look at game play. I'd rather make psychers more abundant in the army as a whole than attach even more significance to Farseers. Their individual powers could use a touch-up and a bit of quality of life. As an alternative, you could introduce an entirely new HQ psycher to fill the gap after Eldrad's demise (I'll say it's at best 50-50 he'll return in 5th ed codex) - the Bonesinger - whom would provide new psycher alternatives.
Remember that blasting someone's body apart is cool an all, but cunnily providing immense benefits to the entire army might be better and, in the greater scheme of things, more awe-inspiring.

As for statline increase. Let's ignore, just for one second, GW's 40K design. GW's 40k design is all about making Space Marines better in all respects, which is something you don't get in Fantasy, and it's something that's only hurting the 40k enterprise in the long run since it's more or less only catering to the temporary customers.
Weapons skill isn't the only thing we're looking at improving for melee aspects, we're also looking at number of attacks. Since we're not touching the ranged weapons themselves (that's a lie), an increase in hit frequency by 25% isn't at all as good as an increase in number of attacks by 33% with a likelihood of hitting increasing by up to 25%, if you get my meaning. In either case, we're not talking about tactical marines gaining another BS here, we're talking about IG who've god super-human agility by way of genes and the training of tactical marines getting the BS of tactical marines. BS5 is reserved for the Marine equivalents of veteran squads. BS6 is reserved for equivalents you can't find in a marine codex, Autarchs and Exarchs both have training and experience that rivals and supercede a chapter master. An Autarch has gone through countless battles and fought as each of the aspects, while Exarchs are high priests of Kaela Mensha Kaine, the God of War.

If Falcons were able to load up on EMLs, you'd see everyone who realized that the template shot count as a defensive weapon do it. If the underslung could be an EML, every Eldar vehicle would suddenly be 30-ish points more expensive. A Holo-Falcon is about 50% more expensive than a prow-field-Serpent with similar weapon capacity. The Holo-Falcon will go down easier to melta-weapons and S10 shots, while the Serpent will bend to massed S6 fire.
Both have their own advantages and if we compare them straight off as transports we could probably work something out for them where the Falcon is the heavy transport while the Serpent is the mass-transit vehicle, but if you compare them as part of an entire list...
DAVU Serpent with Scatter Laser and a Fire Prism (1 Troop, 1 HS, 1 Transport, 290 points, 2 scoring units, 1 contesting unit) versus DAVU Falcon with a holo-field and Scatter Laser (1 Troop, 1 HS, 225 points, 1 scoring unit, 1 contesting unit) I'll gladly pay 65 points more to place a Fire Prism on the table, especially since the Serpent can drop the DAVU off at a remote objective and then claim an objective on it's own.
However, if the Falcon is moved to be a heavy transport, changes need to be made, and it's status as a gunship... altered. It could still remain a gunship transport, of course, but the core problem with number of weapons fired at combat speed need to be addressed.

If you're playing a table with low amount of cover saves, may I recommend purchasing a Wraithlord with a Sword. Convert him so he looks like he's running. Try placing a dead space marine or two on his base. Paint him in slightly brighter colours so he stands out. Then run him up the table, preferably in a way which implies "I want him to get there, but I don't want you to shoot at him - oh wait noooo! I put him in the wrong spot and now you'll shoot at him next turn".
Then purchase Fire Prisms or War Walkers for the other HS slots, paint them a bit more dull, don't kit them out to be survivable. See what I'm getting at? If your lords die because your enemy shoots at them, use them as fire-magnets! That's why we resurrected them in the first place, so not more Eldar should die!
Someone did suggest WLs would be made into squads, which is an interesting suggestion.

I don't agree with Fire Dragons being kamikaze by nature. I'd rather propose that the rest of the army is not good enough at taking down AV10 to AV12 transports. Fire Dragons were made, in my opinion, for taking down Baneblades, and other AV13+ vehicles that aren't containing assault units.

Yeah, I do realize where you came from with the point reduction, but I'd argue that "the points are fine, let's make the Eldar stats and equipment better to fit the costs".

Yes men and no men. I sometimes feel like I'm shooting down ideas all the time

Mahtamori wrote:@Sile
Yes men and no men. I sometimes feel like I'm shooting down ideas all the time

Something I want to say before I start; I don't think you're being harsh or anything despite what you think As long as the points are valid counters I find it all very stimulating.

When I meant reshuffle the FOC, move it to the list I made, just so the choices are 4 / 5 / 5 / 6 / 5, which imo is very balanced.

Wraithguard are indeed decent, but they are, I agree slow on CC. That said, if the enemy has no fist or PW, they will last throughout combat very easily. They are extremely expensive points wise atm - maybe leave them at 35pts, make a selection of 5+ Warlock troops; so they have the mobility of normal troops and give them an extra wound? I can't see them ever not having fearless; being undead and all. At worst they lose combat by 1-2, unless they're hit by something terrible with lots of fists of PWs.

I think giving them powerfists is a good idea, but they'd all be S10, and thus much too good. Maybe dropping them down to S4 and then giving them fists - making them S8.

Yeah, I completely agree with the Guardian Defenders; I mentioned it because it does do everything you said which is beneficial and either way, they currently ARE crewed by Guardians.

In terms of Psychers; maybe giving Warlocks a more prominent role? Maybe something like the Fantasy Magic system, where they can use their normal powers as they are currently, or pass a test to buff them more. ie Conceal 5+ without test, 4+ after a successful test. Enhance is +2 as opposed to +1. S6 AP3 flamers? Only power this wouldn't really work on is Embolden, unless it made them Fearless?

The thing Warlocks become limited to certain troop only units, giving them a nice punch; but perhaps make their powers a small bubble of 6" if a successful test? This would see Eldar having many more psychers fielded, without making Farseers too imba by adding extra powers, but I still think the ability to use a 2nd power standard is something that'd be much needed.

I can see what you're talking about with the stat increase, but don't forget; there are a very few Eldar who have been alive since the fall. Eldar are still capable of reproducing, so you don't have 10'000 years worth of experience behind every Eldar. Eldrad was one of the oldest Eldar, and Asdrubal Vect was described as so young at the time of the fall that he hadn't begun to slide into depravity. I'm not going to lie, I wouldn't mind BS 5, but I dunno. I think it just make them *too* good?

Wraithlords; I've just always just had them die in a turn or two. They soak a devastator squad and that's it. As it is even without them, I find my tanks survive just as long.

I think WL's in squads of 3 would be very interesting. Very. It would work I think, by removing their inherent weakness of low wounds.

I'm not sure about Falcons. Maybe buff them to AV13? Make them a heavy carrier?

As for Dragons; Eldar have like the most S6 shots out of any army. They can pop AV10-11 easily, 12+ gets a bit harder; however Dragons are hard to be applied in anything but a kamikaze role. Perhaps changing them to Flamers OR Meltas in their options? It could lend to more reliance on vehicles popping things. Cheap S9 Bright Lances to fill that gap?

With respect to Wraithguards, I'm not sure that they necessarily need to be given powerfists. If we keep them as S5, but consider each hand to be just a power weapon. Then they'd get an extra attack and ignore armor, which would make them very decent in combat without getting too overpowered, IMO. I agree that they should just be moved to troops if taken as 5+Warlock.

Onto Warlocks, there's a couple of things that I think should happen. Personally, I would love to see them as optional upgrades to all aspect squads, and not just Guardians. This idea has been shot down before, but I think it works well with the Eldar having higher prevalence of psykers. It also would allow the aspects to stay specialized, but able to gain a smidgen of close-range AT through the witchblade/spear.

For their powers,

Conceal -- with the prevalence of cover around, this should grant the unit the Stealth USR

Destructor -- pretty much fine as is

Embolden -- becomes integrated into the Warlock's cost, and doesn't count as his one psychic power

Enhance -- would add +1 to BS,WS,I (w/ the +1BS only if we don't give shooting aspects BS5 by default)

Conduit -- any power cast by a Farseer may be channeled though the Warlock, measuring ranges from the Warlock

Bonesinging -- any unit assaulting the Warlock's unit counts as entering dangerous terrain

I think adding Conduit keeps the ability to cast through Warlocks from becoming overpowered. If you want the ability then you can't use any of the other Warlock powers for the unit.

I see Bonesinging as the Warlock causing the ground around the unit to be pierced by writhing shards of wraithbone. This also reduces attacker's I to 1 unless they have grenades.

Do people feel that integrating Embolden to Warlocks as a general rule not counting as their one power would become overpowered?

I don't think many units need re-allocating in the FOC. Warwalkers (IMO) are one of the few that coud use the move. I think Falcons --> dedicated transport is also a good candidate for being changed, as are Wraithguard --> Troop(given we go for idea of purchasing a unit as a basic number of models + comander).

@Sarukai-
In regards to the 'lock powers, I think conduit would be a good way of implementing the previously suggested idea's. Emboden being included seem's fair if there is a point price increase to mmirror the change. Bonesinging I'm not sure about though, I dont know if it really fits the psychic warrior feel of warlocks. Its not a bad idea as far as the rule itsef goes. I just dont know if its appropriate as a warlock power.

Embolden is the cheapest possible Warlock power. I think Embolden is a good alternative to increasing the Warlock's leadership, which is currently same as Guardians, although Ld8 with re-roll has a negligible improvement over Ld10 without a re-roll. The thing with Embolden, though, is that it does allow a Farseer to re-roll his Psychic leadership test as well.

I say Embolden is a good basic power. As for the costs: they have to be re-determined regardless since we're also adding grenades, increasing save, increasing ballistic skill, etc.

--

On to transports.

Venom
Purpose: light transport for small squads of elite assault units.
Rough description: Open topped fast skimmer with light armament.
Units: may only be purchased for Scorpions, Banshees and Harlequins (Guardians would just fall off).
Capacity: 6 infantry models.

Wave Serpent
Purpose: heavy transport for larger squads of any infantry.
Rough description: Fast assault tank for troop mechanization.
Units: all infantry units that are not jump infantry may purchase this vehicle.
Capacity: 12 infantry models or 5 Wraithguard with 2 infantry models.
Unique standard features: Assault ramp (may assault the turn you disembark), Energy Field.

Falcon
Purpose: heavy transport to cater more to shooting units. Does not have an assault ramp.
Rough description: Main battle tank with a small troop compartment.
Units: all infantry units that are not jump infantry or Wraithguard may purchase this vehicle, note that this includes Dark Reapers.
Capacity: 6 infantry models.
Unique standard features: Crystal targeting matrix (may fire an additional weapon).

The questions thus:
1. Does the Venom have a place in the list?
1b. With the Venom in the list, does it usurp the place of the Falcon?
2. With a Crystal Targeting Matrix, does the Falcon still merit being a transports.
3. Without a Crystal Targeting Matrix, would you feel the Falcon still has a use, or do you think the tank need to be discounted in price for having several weapons it'll likely not use?
4. Should the assault ramp be a purchasable upgrade for the Serpent? If so, should the ramp be allowable for the Falcon as well?
5. Should the assault ramp be called something more... sophisticated?
6. What would you price the Venom at?

P.S. The Venom looks like a Vyper, but instead of a weapon mount it has an elongated rear where troops can "sit" (or lit. "hang on").

Here's another idea for a "transport", or rather a refresher on what has been posted earlier.

Webway Gate. 20 points.
Purchased as vehicles free of the FOC, but each count as a troop for purposes of combat resolution and scoring.
Armour values: Front 12, side 12, rear 12. BS -
Special rules: Immobile, infiltrate, Webway, structure.

Even though immobile, the Webway Gate deploys as an infiltrator, it is warped in onto a locator beacon placed there ahead of time through various means - be it aerial insertion, rangers positioning it there, or a Farseer ordering it placed there as a contingency a long time past.
Webway: The Webway Gate is a gate into the Webway, a myriad of paths known only extensively by the Eldar. While some paths are large enough for spaceships to fit through, the smaller paths to which the Webway Gate is anchored only allow infantry models of normal Eldar stature to navigate. This gate has two uses:
* For Eldar infantry, it count as a friendly table edge for all purposes, and they may deploy from reserves to this gate as well as utilize it when fleeing the field of battle.
* The Gate may allow a quick way of moving from one gate to another, time passes differently inside the Webway and physical distances matter little. An infantry unit may enter a Webway Gate, at which point it is returned to reserves.
Structure: The Webway Gate is a structure for all purposes after deployment, but fully ignores crew shaken and crew stunned results.

Wow, I have to admire how much work you guys have done here.

But most of the changes you mention would make the Eldar list completely OTT and OP. Sorry.

* Warp Spiders Deathspinners change from Assault 2 to Assault 1 Template (blast or flame?) which leaves the hit unit in difficult and dangerous terrain until the next time the models are moved.

That would lead to every Eldar player picking 30 Warp Spiders for every game he plays in.

Imagine having the ability to drop 30 S-6 Rending BS 4 (or 5, like you suggested) blasts on your enemy every turn, before jumping back out of charge range. Too much. Also, blasts doesn't fit with the fluff.

Also, having the WS and BS of Guardians improved by +1 would make them the most cost-effective Troops in the game. After all, they are only normal citizens,
not Space Marines who have trained for decades.

Guardian Defenders be armed with rapid fire version of shuriken catapult (18" or 24"), several poster

Congratulations, you have created the boltgun.

A unit of Ws 4 Bs 4 Sv4+ boltgun-toting Guardians is not my idea of a citizen militia.

Looking at the first page, I also notice Jump Pack-Wraithlords. Sigh. I'm ringing the OP bell again.

No, seriously, most of it is too much. Although there are some good ideas. I like the idea of the Venom transport. And the Rangers really need a drop in points cost.

Ediin wrote:Wow, I have to admire how much work you guys have done here.

But most of the changes you mention would make the Eldar list completely OTT and OP. Sorry.

Absolutely none of the units we've described as are OP as a Terminator unit with Storm Shield and Thunderhammer arriving through drop pods from any given Space Marine codex.

You forget that some changes require a points re-allocation.

Ediin wrote:

* Warp Spiders Deathspinners change from Assault 2 to Assault 1 Template (blast or flame?) which leaves the hit unit in difficult and dangerous terrain until the next time the models are moved.

That would lead to every Eldar player picking 30 Warp Spiders for every game he plays in.

Imagine having the ability to drop 30 S-6 Rending BS 4 (or 5, like you suggested) blasts on your enemy every turn, before jumping back out of charge range. Too much. Also, blasts doesn't fit with the fluff.

You are taking it out of context. This is a list of changes agreed upon, and a list of changes proposed. It's not an exhaustive list and does not preclude further alterations. What has been agreed on is simple: the Deathspinner delivery method is changed to flame template. The proposal you quote would not necessarily be rending.

Ediin wrote:Also, having the WS and BS of Guardians improved by +1 would make them the most cost-effective Troops in the game. After all, they are only normal citizens,
not Space Marines who have trained for decades.

They are normal citizens for Eldar. You know. The people who has a skeletal structure different from humans, limbs of differing range, a psyche a human would find more alien than their looks, a sense of humour which to a human exhibits extreme morbidity, manufactures complex material designs a human artificer could only dream of through rituals, and most importantly live longer in a society which does not function like a human society does.

Some of those normal citizens are former aspect warriors, but common to all is that they've had a basic training in warfare far beyond what a human standing army has. BS4 represents an amalgamation between extensive training which would rival any space marine and a body which functions in a more agile way than a human body does. It is not by any means far fetched regarding fluff.

Now, if you have any concerns regarding actual game play, I am all ears. Just keep in mind that they are currently possibly the least cost-effective troop choice in the game.

Ediin wrote:

Guardian Defenders be armed with rapid fire version of shuriken catapult (18" or 24"), several poster

Congratulations, you have created the boltgun.

A unit of Ws 4 Bs 4 Sv4+ boltgun-toting Guardians is not my idea of a citizen militia.

Regarding fluff: a unit of BS3 poorly equipped militia is not my idea of a fighting unit for a dying race who'd be struggling to keep a balance in death:newborn ratio in peace times.

Regarding game play: I tend to agree that addressing the issue with assigning rapid fire to the basic catapult is the way to go.

Ediin wrote:Looking at the first page, I also notice Jump Pack-Wraithlords. Sigh. I'm ringing the OP bell again.

No, seriously, most of it is too much. Although there are some good ideas. I like the idea of the Venom transport. And the Rangers really need a drop in points cost.

I am sure more than just me would appreciate constructive criticism, rather than just negative criticism.

Care to explain how a jump-pack Wraithlord would be over powered? I'll refrain from sarcasm, but suffice to say, once more you are comparing it without compromise - which is strictly not what this thread is about.

@Ediin- Firstly, thank you for chipping in obviously without reading everything.
If blast doesnt represent warpspiders fluff, then why does the nightspinner (that fires the same ammo) use a large blast?
The only real option as far as BS/WS goes is 3/3, 3/4, 4/3 or 4/4. Eldar are supposed to be superior to humans, so the 3/3 guardsman statine is arguably too low. Splitting the stats to have 1 as 4 and the other as 3 could work (and I was supporting that idea way back when). WS4 BS4 doesnt mean they are space marines, as every eldar is substantially older than a human its not unreasonable to suggest they have similar stat lines.
Your comment about the shuricat's was needless, armies have different weapons with the same stat lines all over the place. you wouldnt say "well done for making a meta" to the person who came up with fusion guns would you?

Focusedfire explained his reasoning behind the different wraithlords and we have since re-assessed them.

If you have any suggestions rather than just saying "thats OP" i'm sure we'd be happy to hear them.

Venom
Purpose: light transport for small squads of elite assault units.
Rough description: Open topped fast skimmer with light armament.
Units: may only be purchased for Scorpions, Banshees and Harlequins (Guardians would just fall off).
Capacity: 6 infantry models.

I had pretty much the exact same idea posted on the forums the other week but couldn't settle on a decent name, venom is good but doesn't fit in my head either. I wouldn't just limit it to those aspects as i can see a use for DA drive-bys with an open-topped skimmer.

Wave Serpent
Purpose: heavy transport for larger squads of any infantry.
Rough description: Fast assault tank for troop mechanization.
Units: all infantry units that are not jump infantry may purchase this vehicle.
Capacity: 12 infantry models or 5 Wraithguard with 2 infantry models.
Unique standard features: Assault ramp (may assault the turn you disembark), Energy Field.

I feel the assault ramp would just drive the price of this vehicle up, its a tremendously useful upgrade that would cost alot IMO. My initial thoughts were to have Banshees able to purchase a skill that gave them the ability to assailt from a vehicle as if it had an assailt ramp. The other assaulty units do well on foot so do not need assault ramps as much as banshees do.

Falcon
Purpose: heavy transport to cater more to shooting units. Does not have an assault ramp.
Rough description: Main battle tank with a small troop compartment.
Units: all infantry units that are not jump infantry or Wraithguard may purchase this vehicle, note that this includes Dark Reapers.
Capacity: 6 infantry models.
Unique standard features: Crystal targeting matrix (may fire an additional weapon).

With the CTM the falcon would be an incredible DT for any unit that could take it, move 12" and firing 3 s8 shots a turn? Although i really like the idea, two falcon entire could fit well.
1) Dedicated Trasport: Falcon Battle Tank - pretty much as is. For the slower advance.
2) Heavy Support: Battle Tank - armour 13, 12, 10 with BS4. 0 transport capacity. May replace top turret with... (fire-prism, etc. more varients would be nice) may purchase CTW for X points.

The questions thus:
1. Does the Venom have a place in the list?
1b. With the Venom in the list, does it usurp the place of the Falcon?
2. With a Crystal Targeting Matrix, does the Falcon still merit being a transports.
3. Without a Crystal Targeting Matrix, would you feel the Falcon still has a use, or do you think the tank need to be discounted in price for having several weapons it'll likely not use?
4. Should the assault ramp be a purchasable upgrade for the Serpent? If so, should the ramp be allowable for the Falcon as well?
5. Should the assault ramp be called something more... sophisticated?
6. What would you price the Venom at?

1. YES! i'd love that vehicle, and it sits very well with harlequins and the more hot-blooded craftworlds
1b. Venom brings speed while the falcon brings durability and fire power. For most units i'd still prefer a falcon.
2. Answered above.
3. Answered above.
4. No to both, See above.
5. If its included, I'd say yes.
6. +10 points on whatever the vyper points will be after this re-write.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding the fast but few.
2 KP's is really a bit much for small T3 units, however i can see the reasoning behind it.
A possible solution could be that if the unit remains as a whole then when that unit is destroyed, roll a die, on a 4+ a second KP is generated for the opponent.
If the unit is split into 2 independant units than they are worth a KP each as normal and the 4+ roll's are ignored.

On a side-note. A unit that splits into 2 groups, would they be able to buy a second DT? rules say no, but this rule would be wasted on some units (FD, Banshees, etc) who really do need a transport, having half the squad on foot would not be a great idea.

With the "combat tactic" style of squad splitting i wouldn't feel to bad about having a 0-1 limit on each type of aspect as you could still essentially have 2 small units of that aspect for one choice.

sarukai wrote:With respect to Wraithguards, I'm not sure that they necessarily need to be given powerfists. If we keep them as S5, but consider each hand to be just a power weapon. Then they'd get an extra attack and ignore armor, which would make them very decent in combat without getting too overpowered, IMO. I agree that they should just be moved to troops if taken as 5+Warlock.

Onto Warlocks, there's a couple of things that I think should happen. Personally, I would love to see them as optional upgrades to all aspect squads, and not just Guardians. This idea has been shot down before, but I think it works well with the Eldar having higher prevalence of psykers. It also would allow the aspects to stay specialized, but able to gain a smidgen of close-range AT through the witchblade/spear.

For their powers,

Conceal -- with the prevalence of cover around, this should grant the unit the Stealth USR

Destructor -- pretty much fine as is

Embolden -- becomes integrated into the Warlock's cost, and doesn't count as his one psychic power

Enhance -- would add +1 to BS,WS,I (w/ the +1BS only if we don't give shooting aspects BS5 by default)

Conduit -- any power cast by a Farseer may be channeled though the Warlock, measuring ranges from the Warlock

Bonesinging -- any unit assaulting the Warlock's unit counts as entering dangerous terrain

I think adding Conduit keeps the ability to cast through Warlocks from becoming overpowered. If you want the ability then you can't use any of the other Warlock powers for the unit.

I see Bonesinging as the Warlock causing the ground around the unit to be pierced by writhing shards of wraithbone. This also reduces attacker's I to 1 unless they have grenades.

Do people feel that integrating Embolden to Warlocks as a general rule not counting as their one power would become overpowered?

1)Agree with Wtaithguard attacks becoming power weapon. PF is OTT
2)Like the warlock powers, but Enhance should go the way of the do-do. If Guardians get stat increase the enhance will have to go.
3)I like your bonesinger ideas, but they would need to be fully discussed before I could agree or dis-agree.

Mahtamori wrote:

The questions thus:
1. Does the Venom have a place in the list?
1b. With the Venom in the list, does it usurp the place of the Falcon?
2. With a Crystal Targeting Matrix, does the Falcon still merit being a transports.
3. Without a Crystal Targeting Matrix, would you feel the Falcon still has a use, or do you think the tank need to be discounted in price for having several weapons it'll likely not use?
4. Should the assault ramp be a purchasable upgrade for the Serpent? If so, should the ramp be allowable for the Falcon as well?
5. Should the assault ramp be called something more... sophisticated?
6. What would you price the Venom at?

P.S. The Venom looks like a Vyper, but instead of a weapon mount it has an elongated rear where troops can "sit" (or lit. "hang on").

1)Yes, venom has a place in the list, but needs to be altered to max transport capacity of 3 models each and must be taken in squadron form. Use Tua Pirahna/drones as template for multiple transports moving a single unit. I feel this is necessary from a points balancing issue.
1b)No, the Falc is a gunboat/command vehicle. It should only be a dedicated transport for the Farseer and his warlock council (Maybe other HQs and Pheonix Lords, too).
2)That is a good question. BTW, I agree about the vehicle getting to fire all of its turret weapos as if they are a single weapon, Not sure about using the CTM name.
3)Falc would still have uses if pointed appropriately.
4)No! Assault ramp should not be on Wave Serp. Would be no reason for Venom. The inherent visual would be that the Pilot should be falling out of the vehicle.
5)It should be called nothing, it has no place on the wave serpent.
6)Venoms should be an upgrade for the Vypers, so should be about the same price.

About the Web Gates:
IMO, as neat as they are, they should be an Apoc option and model.

Ediin wrote:Wow, I have to admire how much work you guys have done here.

But most of the changes you mention would make the Eldar list completely OTT and OP. Sorry.

* Warp Spiders Deathspinners change from Assault 2 to Assault 1 Template (blast or flame?) which leaves the hit unit in difficult and dangerous terrain until the next time the models are moved.

That would lead to every Eldar player picking 30 Warp Spiders for every game he plays in.

Imagine having the ability to drop 30 S-6 Rending BS 4 (or 5, like you suggested) blasts on your enemy every turn, before jumping back out of charge range. Too much. Also, blasts doesn't fit with the fluff.

Also, having the WS and BS of Guardians improved by +1 would make them the most cost-effective Troops in the game. After all, they are only normal citizens,
not Space Marines who have trained for decades.

Guardian Defenders be armed with rapid fire version of shuriken catapult (18" or 24"), several poster

Congratulations, you have created the boltgun.

A unit of Ws 4 Bs 4 Sv4+ boltgun-toting Guardians is not my idea of a citizen militia.

Looking at the first page, I also notice Jump Pack-Wraithlords. Sigh. I'm ringing the OP bell again.

No, seriously, most of it is too much. Although there are some good ideas. I like the idea of the Venom transport. And the Rangers really need a drop in points cost.

If these ideas where going into a Fan-dex, then they would be gathered and then balanced through playtesting, also, some ideas have been thrown out as what-ifs in order to encourage conversation. The ideas being bandied about are in many ways inspired by units/Armies GW has recently done and in many ways this discussion is intended to help players to become more familiar with the base design concepts of the Eldar after the muddle of the last Codex.

Now to address your concerns on some of the units:

1)Warp Spiders: I have necer advocated a full squad of 10. I feel that Squads of 6 should balance the switch to the weapon becoming a lower powered S 3 or 4 template that replaces the normal templates cover ignoring abilities with other weapon specific ones.

2)Guardians were being proposed to be about same price as the current Sisters or Fire Warriors(About 10 points per model). As to them not being SMs, You are right, Many guardians have had more combat experience . Now seriously, Many Guardians have served, when needed, for centuries. If SoBs are WS4 and BS 4 in their short lives and the Eldar are supposed ro be a xenos race with physical skill and grace that exceeds humans and even SM's, I think the proposed starting Stat-line is completely in order.

3)Please to note that, I have steadily maintained that the Guardian Defenders should get the Lasblaster, but with a proposed shorter range. Something like: Lasblaster - Range 18" S 3 AP 5 Assault 2 (or Rapid Fire depending upon playtesting)

4)The Themed Aspects were my way of opening/provoking a conversation. They are the type of units that you would see if Iyanden got its own codex. Even in heir own Eldar ghost army codex the themed Wraithlords may seem OP, but thn I would point you to Deepstriking Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts. If you go back and read the first two pages you will see that I say that there is no room in the Eldar codex for such units.

Now, having said all of this, I would like to welcome you to the conversation and to ask for you to stick around as a voice of reason. I do agree that some of the proposals are a bit OP and have been subtley pushing for balance in the units by allowing for a Higher base Stat-line, but at a lower model count per unit and higher price per model(Except Phoenix Lords). The only exception on the pricing would be the Phoenix Lords and I don't mind their price as much as their position as HQ choices that use up a FOC slot and thier lack of abilities to justify the price. Aside from the lords I believe that there will need to be limits that help to prevent the proposed army as a whole from being OP. IMO, It is when we can point out and propose what the weak points of the Eldar should be that we begin to understand the basic nature of the Eldar.

Edits: Spellin and dropped word.

I wouldn't say a squad of Storm Guardians do well on foot, and neither Storm Guardians nor Scorpions do well on foot or in a transport if you're using a mechanized list. I don't think Banshees need an assault ramp any more than Scorpions do - they are the same unit but with different purpose. What is to say that you need to assault a small unit of Marines any more than you need to assault a large unit of Imperial Guard? Both units need one, and Storm Guardians need pretty much anything you can give to them to perform since they are a down-graded version of Banshee or Scorpion - i.e. a Banshee or Scorpion without tailored purpose.
Just because an upgrade is really beneficial doesn't mean it's expensive! While it's bad form planning for a cheap and dirty fix, GW does it all the time - some options are just to effective not to use. On the other hand, an Assault Ramp is so very mandatory on this particular vehicle, unless you intend to fill it with a large squad of DA or FD, the former are still able to benefit from it!
I personally do not see the point in having an upgrade everyone will take anyway as an option.

The Venom's name is taken straight from the Gavin Thorpe's Harlequin 3rd edition "codex". In that version, the Venom was a heavy support option since they didn't have any dedicated transports as such back then (nor, oddly, any other heavy support options since their version of Dark Reaper were Elite).

The Falcon is a difficult thing. As a transport, you don't really want to give it too many weapons unless you think you can use them - and on Eldar vehicles speed, not armour, is your defence. If you do give the Falcon that Crystal Targeting Matrix, you on the other hand boost it up to the true performance of a Heavy Support slot making the move to Transport nonsensical.
As for having Crystal Targeting Matrix as a general option for vehicles - it would only benefit the other Codex vehicles if they chose underslung Shuriken Cannon, which is the weakest possible Eldar heavy weapon at the moment. And that only if you do NOT play Apocalypse.

Regarding KP: I'd say each separate squad gives KP in accordance to their slot. If the squad doesn't split, it gives one batch of KP if annihilated, if the squad splits it gives two. I think this is the same as a Marines tactical teams, no?

@Everyone, I ask that you be a little more relaxed in your replies. I don't think Ediin was being overly negative and I want all veiw points represented as long as its not trollisn in nature. Simply observing that much of this could be OP is not necessarily an attempt to troll. Ediin brought up something that I was getting ready to myself.

@Dayve- No extra transports. They are not needed because the unit can split mid-game. This means that if a Wave Serpent has 8 FD embarked within, that at some point 4 may disembark while the others can remain inside to rush to another area.

As to the Venom and which aspects may take them. I feel that this would be an Assault transport for Assault units that would need the Acrobatic ability just to stay on the things. I also want to avoid an Eldar Leafblower type situation. I will consider changing my position on this if the Aspects are limited to being Unique unless a Specific Phoenix Lord or Hero HQ is taken.

As to the KP, I want it to be 2 no matter what, if the unit is taken in a larger than min size. This is to balance the squad splitting occuring during the game as opposed to before. It is a tremendous ability that paying an extra KP for is still a dirt cheap trade off.

Edit to include last sentence about KP.

focusedfire wrote:
@Dayve- No extra transports. They are not needed because the unit can split mid-game. This means that if a Wave Serpent has 8 FD embarked wethin, that at some point 4 may disembark while the others can remain inside to rush to another area.

Ahhh... i get it now. What happens if the unit suffers casualties and then splits?
unit of 10 is 5 and 5... that units takes 4 casualties. Is the split based on the original value, or current. Would those 6 remaining men split off into 3 and 3 or 1 and 5? Either way has some advantages.

Option 1) If it is based on original values. The unit of 6 could split into 5 and 1, the five men hunting something to destroy with the lone model claiming/contesting objectives or just hiding for KP denial. However if the unit dropped under half strength they would be no longer able to split at all, eliminating the scenario below.
Option 2) If it is based on current size the unit could always split, meaning is 2 DA remained, they could split and claim 2 objectives.

A third option could be to split 50 50 as best as possible but have a minimum of 2 in each group perhaps.

focusedfire wrote:As to the Venom and which aspects may take them. I feel that this would be an Assault transport for Assault units that would need the Acrobatic ability just to stay on the thing. I also whant to avoid an Eldar Leafblower type situation. I will consider changing my position on this if the Aspects are limited to being Unique unless a Specific Phoenix Lord or Hero HQ is taken.

Dark Eldar seem to hold onto their transports (with sufficient lack of hand rails that raises many health and safety issues) i don't see many Eldar having a problem doing the same. Ifs pretty limited to who can take it anyway if its capacity 6. If it was limited at all i'd say to just leave it with harlequins.

Well, it's exactly a combat squad with the sole exception that you may split the unit at a later point than during deployment. I don't think that's enough for you to pay extra KP if you choose not to split the unit, especially since it adds a level of complexity to the rules which is not necessary and when there already is a ready-to-use rule you can just carbon copy onto the units.
Remember that the reason you pay extra KPs for Combat Squads after they split isn't because of the amount of Marines, it's because those Marines are now independent of each other - they shoot on different targets, they get shot at as separate units, they claim objectives separately and so on.
I CAN see the need for paying extra KPs if and only if the squad is able to merge back together again, but that's a whole separate piece of movement.

That's not really saying I agree with the combat squad rule as such, as I sort of like Eldar as being not only the guardians of the continuum of the 40k universe, but also guardians of how a proper army codex should look like. I.e. simple, clear-cut, rules with a neat format that doesn't need a truck-load of special rules with glamorous names in order to perform. The amount of special rules you can fit on an average 4x4 is plenty enough

Alright, so call me conservative (which where I come from isn't a nice thing to call someone), but that's my stand point.

P.S. dayve raises a good question: how do you calculate original squad size when it comes to casualties and regrouping? I think that's the main reason why Space Marines aren't allowed to split after deployment.

Oh, and would a unit be able to split several times? What moderates that?

@Dayve110- I feel it should be always able to split in half and then let the player find out the problem of having 2 man FD or Banshee squads. If the unit is an odd number then it is spit as close to even as possible. This would also make the Pheonix Lords, Autarchs and just about any IC very useful.

As to the transports, I said that I am willing to reconsider. I also think that the squad plitting could be worked into my preffered idea of the Venoms carrying only 3 passengers and needing to be a squadron to carry a non-IC unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Mahtamori-We are going to have disagree on this because you want clean and simple even if it sacrifices balance, while I want a balanced army and feel that it is ok if the Eldar are coplex to use.

As to the copypasta. Trying to do such for a rule designed for the SM's without change just doesn't fit or work. I also disagree with your assessment about 2KP, but if it is such problem and is to complex for you:b then I say just make Aspects a flat 2 KP not matter what you do with them.
KP is supposed to represent the logistical cost of fielding such units and the cost of what it would take to replace that unit if it is destroyed. Seeing as the Eldar cannot really afford to waste lives and they are very hard to replace then make them worth more.

In answer to your question, Squads would be able to only split once a game and would not be able to reunite.

You need constructive criticism? Well, if you were offended I apologise. I might maybe have a few ideas to contribute.

Concerning Guardians, as Mahtamori mentioned on page 2, the best ways to increase the usefulness of Guardians would be

1. Give them avengers catapults

2.Reduce Points

3. More platforms

Out of these three, I think that the third option is best. Maybe give them the same options as Space Wolves, that if the squad numbers 10+ models,
a second platform may be chosen for free?

Keep them at 10 points, MAYBE raise the BS to 4, and give them the free platform mentioned, and they'll be fine. If you want to make the Catapults Rapid Fire, make it AP 6.

WARP SPIDERS

As for the spiders, I think that Flame Templates will still make them OP. Give them Rending, so it fits with the fluff, and lower the points cost a little.

Just to throw out an alternative to extra KP and splittable squads: reduce the squad sizes for all aspect warriors and make alterations to the FOC and scoring rules.

We could say +2 Elite, +2 Fast Attack, -2 Troops compared to a regular FOC, keeping the minimum 1HQ, 2 Troops levels. To counter the reduction in troop slots, let a foot Autarch make Elite aspects scoring, and a FA Autarch (wings/WJG/bike) make FA aspects scoring.

Limits may need to be in place like early definitions of Fast but Few to prevent one aspect from being spammed?

New squad sizes could be (just for example):
3-8 Banshees
3-8 Scorpions
3-8 Dragons
5-12 Avengers
3-6 Spears
3-6 Hawks
3-6 Spiders
3-6 Reapers

@FocusedFire: I don't mean to sound harsh here but I've noticed you've been really inflexible on a LOT of points. For the past 3 pages or so you've been unwilling to compromise on the KP issue with the aspects, before that it was the limiting of how many squads of aspects you can take, now it's back to the Venoms ONLY being taken as squadrons. Loosen up a little, man.

Now so as not to just be blindly criticizing, I'll offer my views on those points.

As for the Kill Points, maybe integrate Sarukai's squad sizes in and make it so you're only penalized for taking a squad over 8? Dark Reapers obviously would be exempt because of their low max squad sizes.

Regarding the limits on how many squads of each aspect are chosen, I know this has been more or less taken care of but I feel that limiting players in this kind of way is always a bad idea. Sure there might be some balance issues, but isn't the freedom to play the game how you want to more important?

For the Venoms, I see where you're coming from with the squadron thing, but it really doesn't make sense to make people buy at least 3 moderately expensive (money-wise) models to field the same thing they could easily do with one. I'm not saying this is something GW wouldn't do, because they love anything that'll get us to spend even more on their tiny plastic men. Would it really be so bad to let 6-7 guys sit in one Venom?

Anyways, that's just my two cents.

A minor point, Ediin, they are currently 8 points and each individual Guardian perform slightly something like a 5 points IG conscript (a las-rifle is more or less the same in terms of utility - say "hi" to the most technologically advanced race in the universe). The heavy weapon is purchased on it's own, so something must still be done regarding the cost of the unit. True that you can discount their weapon's cost significantly and emphasize on that one instead, but with their current profile... there is no point what so ever in increasing the squad size of a Guardian squad at all. If a limit is set at 10+ for a free heavy weapon (although keep in mind that there is a huge difference in power between a Shuriken Cannon and an EML), then the real max size will be exactly 10 - no one in their right mind will take more.
See, this here unit is a problem child ever since GW decided that Space Marine were going to be the almighty poster child (i.e. since going from 2nd to 3rd edition). In 2nd edition, Shuriken weapons were rather deadly and put bolters to shame, if my information is correct, both regarding range and killing power.

As for the Warp Spiders, having them have Rending is my most preferred option as well, although I don't think a point reduction is guaranteed if they have Rending.

@focusedfire: No, sacrificing balance is strictly your point of view. There are plenty of ways of adding special rules and specialization to a squad without appending several layers of rules text no 14 year old Spess Mahreen player will ever understand.
The volatility of splitting squads in game is that it's difficult to keep track of if you've got a lot of squads running around. Additionally, having squads of very small size also has drawback in terms of suspense of disbelief.
For this proposal to get anywhere it needs structure. Clear cut; how will I keep track of it, when can I do it, how may the squads look like and so on.

My most basic reaction is KISS (Keep it simple, stupid). The simplest way is, thus:
An Eldar Aspect Warrior unit may at any point in the Movement Phase split into two units by moving a portion of the unit out of coherency with the rest of the unit. Both units will after that point act as entirely different units for all purposes. Here's a few highlights:
* How to treat casualties prior to the split is NOT dealt with and MUST be dealt with
* An Aspect Warrior unit may split multiple times, no need to attempt to keep track of it
* Each time a unit is destroyed, it provides a KP. Splitting a unit for tactical advantage has additional drawbacks if you fail, while you can protect your points by not using this tactical advantage.
* A minimum size for a split squad should also be imposed. A "unit" of 1 aspect warrior split from a unit of 8 is a bit silly.

The third bullet point highlights my stand point the most. I think you should get punished only if you take the risk and fail, not if you don't take the risk and still fail. This creates a dynamic situation, while still keeping it a lot more simple. This is also what I mean with not attaching special rules and so on since often you can achieve similar results by simpler paths.

One possible way to avoid problems with original squad sizes and so on is to assign a new rule I'll call Determination of a Dying Breed - As the race diminishes and more souls join the infinity circle, the Eldar warriors become ever more accustomed to fighting in small groups and in desperate situations. These Eldar units never suffer drawbacks associated with being fewer than full unit strength and may always regroup regardless of losses.
Again, I'd like to point out the difference between special special rules (which I dislike) and special rules (which I like). Suspending or invoking known concepts is a special rule (such as Living Metal or Shadowstrike), while making up entirely new situations and assigning special rules to those situations... is not.

Mahtamori wrote:One possible way to avoid problems with original squad sizes and so on is to assign a new rule I'll call Determination of a Dying Breed - As the race diminishes and more souls join the infinity circle, the Eldar warriors become ever more accustomed to fighting in small groups and in desperate situations. These Eldar units never suffer drawbacks associated with being fewer than full unit strength and may always regroup regardless of losses.

I like that one. Seems balanced to me.

And yes, they're 8 points, sorry. I own the Codex but somehow I was convinced that they were 10 points

However, I dont think giving them a slightly improved ''Combat Squad'' rule will do it. Why do Aspect Warriors need Combat Squads?

IMO, a better way to make Aspect Warriors more useful is to give Assault-based Aspects the ''Furious Charge'' USR, and Shooty-Aspects a rule that says they can run and still shoot?

Also, the AWSR rules discussed on the previous pages are great, and would make the Eldar a lot more mobile.

This all greatly improves Howling Banshees, as now they dont require a Farseer using Doom all the time (Due to furious Charge),
They have an Assault Transport (Venom)
And they're more mobile when on foot (Graceful Step/Fast but Few).

Guardians.

WS 3 BS 4 S 3 T3 W 1 I 4 Ld 8 Sv 4+

9 points.

That's good. They have 1 higher Bs, 1 higher I, 1 higher Ld, and a better save than Guardsmen. And pay 4 points.

* How to treat casualties prior to the split is NOT dealt with and MUST be dealt with
* An Aspect Warrior unit may split multiple times, no need to attempt to keep track of it
* Each time a unit is destroyed, it provides a KP. Splitting a unit for tactical advantage has additional drawbacks if you fail, while you can protect your points by not using this tactical advantage.
* A minimum size for a split squad should also be imposed. A "unit" of 1 aspect warrior split from a unit of 8 is a bit silly.

So what happens if a full unit sufferes casuaties in a way that they are no longer in coherency? Would they be forced to form two squads?
I think (without wanting to sound overly critical) that being able to possibly have 10 "units" of 1 man is stupid. Your basically making a rule that allows you to choose to treat every model in a squad as an IC and it would cause mayhem regarding multiple combats and things like that. If you split up everything then your opponent can only kill one model per turn.

Although I do like the idea of venom's I'd see them as a 'Quin transport only. Its hard to debate vehicles for units when we havent talked about the units themselves yet
I see scorps as needing improvement to make them a stelthy foot slogging unit, but to do that we would have to discuss them. I think Quins, Banshees and scorps would be a good thing to discuss soon.

Another note regarding Spiders, I think if they had a maximum size of 6 in a unit and change them to template S3 rending, monofilament wire (like nightspinner) they wouldnt be OP. although, If your allowing them to split into as many little squads as possible, the ability to bog down 6 units is insane.

IMO splitting squads just doesn't seem Eldar. Like; Eldar are about the overwhelming precise application of force, not splitting up to be flexible.

As it stands, splitting up a squad fluff wise seems very un-Eldar.


Also something thats nagging me but no biggie, but does Venom really sound like a Craftworld Eldar name? :v It fits DE and Harlies perfectly, but I dunno about Craftworld Eldar

Maybe something like the Swift or Eagle or something. There is a trend with Eldar vehicle names, and it tends to be some kind of animal; except for the prism and spinner.

Devil's advocate here :v :v

Sile wrote:IMO splitting squads just doesn't seem Eldar. Like; Eldar are about the overwhelming precise application of force, not splitting up to be flexible.

As it stands, splitting up a squad fluff wise seems very un-Eldar.

Agreed in full.

Sile wrote:Also something thats nagging me but no biggie, but does Venom really sound like a Craftworld Eldar name? :v It fits DE and Harlies perfectly, but I dunno about Craftworld Eldar

Maybe something like the Swift or Eagle or something. There is a trend with Eldar vehicle names, and it tends to be some kind of animal; except for the prism and spinner.

Devil's advocate here :v :v

Yes, Venom is a Harlequin name, not a Craftworld Eldar. Keeping with the name association with snakes (Wave Serpent and Vyper) how about Sand Krait? I'm not very good with snake etymology, and it was the best sounding name I could come up with.

For a new name for the venom i too decided to go with the serpent aspect. And decided to search the almighty google.
My first idea was to search for a small, agile, fast snake that could deliver a significantly deadly payload (ie, venom that needs medication)
The two results i had back were a coral snake and a type of viper... we can't use viper twice and the "coral" is not a well known snake breed nor a decent name for a vehicle.

However within a few minutes i found that the name "asp" is a sub-species of viper and could serve our purpose.

It proves difficult to find a name that fits and is likable.

But i suppose on the other hand it doesn't have to be named after a snake, a falcon isn't, and a fire prism isn't named after an animal at all.

@dayve110 - I was going to suggest asp, but wasnt to sure. I think it could do with being longer, like wave serpent. It could do with a little somthing else added.

Are we giving up on the Banshee exarch power idea for assaulting out of serpents if we introduce the new vehicle? I'd be all for re-introducing solitaire as a special character that allows Quins to be taken as troops so you could build a pure clown army, but that may call for some diversifying of Quins to make them viable.

As I previously said, I dont see any purpous in perfecting a new vehicle if we haven't tackled the existing units that will use it.

I don't really agree with that rule because in a way it's sorta biased cause you're saying that in order to have a special rule for your craftworld you have to choose an already made one. Lets say you are playing a game with 2 eldar players playing against each other, one has an already made craftworld and the other has his homebrewed craftworld. The craftworld with the special rule has an advantage and can win easier, but the other guy can only play regular and doesn't have any special rules, also it's forcing you to want to make an already made craftworld when you want to make your own and have the creativity of making your own. But if you're someone who really wants a special rule then you are gonna have to make that craftworld. Also it might not work cause someone with a homebrewed craftworld could say that it is alaitoc but it is not and then they get the special rule. It's not really fair that the codex gets to choose how you paint your models. Now, if the already made craftworlds had their rules and there was one more that homebrewed craftworlds could choose from that would be better, cause then you can choose what ever craftworld you'd like and still have a special rule.

focusedfire wrote:

2)Craftworlds-A Player may choose a single craftworld theme for their army from the list of Craftworlds or may choose to not field one of the listed Craftworlds. If the player chooses to not use a listed Craftworld then they may not benefit from this Craftworld rule.
The Following is a list of each Eldar Craftworlds Special Rule:

Alaitoc: Path of the Outcast-Each Ranger and Pathfinder unit on the table may sacrifice their scout move to roll a d6. On a roll of 4+ for Rangers and 3+ for Pathfinders the unit may fire upon an enemy unit prior to Turn 1. However, any units that do not possess the Scout or Infiltrate rule must enter the game from reserves.

Biel-Tan: Court of the Young King-If the Avatar is taken as a HQ, then the Fast but few penalty of +1 KP on Aspect units purchased above minimum strength no longer applies. However, each unit of Aspect Warriors on the Table must test pass a leadership test at the beginning of each turn or they will suffer from the Rage USR untill the next turn.

Iyanden: Army of Ghosts-Units of 5 Wraith Guard may be taken as troop choices if a Spiritseer is included in the Unit, but any Apect Warrior Units taken will be worth +1 KP to their normal total value.

Saim-Hann: Wild Riders-Guardian Jetbikes receive the Skilled Rider rule and Vehicles receive Star Engine upgrade or free, but the Army may only include one unit per FoC with less than a 12" base movement and only if these units have purchased a Wave Serpent.

Ulthwe: Minds Eye- Farseers may cast his powers through any warlock within 18", with LoS drawn from the Warlock used as conduit for the Power. When this is attempted, both farsser amd warlock must take a PotW test.


The reason why I am so keen on the Idea of craftworlds, is that they form such an important part of the Eldar Story. I look at their inclusion as a more balanced form of the SW sagas. The Eldar Empire used to span the galaxy but now they are just a few remnants living of craftworlds that each has its own philosophy and culture. I would like to see this represented in a manner that tries on a basic level to balance the bonuses with suitable limitations.

Now I know that these rules are not fully developed, but think they are a step in the right direction. I have tried to incorporate your various ideas into rules that fit the goals I stated earlier and will work well with some of the wargear ideas (Simulcrums-Holo-graphic clones). Let me know what you think.



About Careful Planning, I am getting tired and will stop soon, but I've got an idea for taking it down to two units but they come in from reserve on any turn that you want them to and they do so within 12" of each other. The units should actually supporting one another if they get to deploy together. Will also need work on clarifying if Independent characters joined to unit count as a seperate unit or not.
Will talk more on this later, when better rested and after thinking of ways this might could be exploited/balanced. Seems good but something isn't quite there yet, imo.

Thanks guys, am going to go rest now,
Later

Pennywise wrote:I don't really agree with that rule because in a way it's sorta biased cause you're saying that in order to have a special rule for your craftworld you have to choose an already made one. Lets say you are playing a game with 2 eldar players playing against each other, one has an already made craftworld and the other has his homebrewed craftworld. The craftworld with the special rule has an advantage and can win easier, but the other guy can only play regular and doesn't have any special rules, also it's forcing you to want to make an already made craftworld when you want to make your own and have the creativity of making your own. But if you're someone who really wants a special rule then you are gonna have to make that craftworld. Also it might not work cause someone with a homebrewed craftworld could say that it is alaitoc but it is not and then they get the special rule. It's not really fair that the codex gets to choose how you paint your models. Now, if the already made craftworlds had their rules and there was one more that homebrewed craftworlds could choose from that would be better, cause then you can choose what ever craftworld you'd like and still have a special rule.

I believe the idea is that the "homebrew" craftworld would be acting as a main craftworld. Iybraesil would act as Biel-Tan and Il-Kaith would possibly act as Iyanden. Essentially, your army's theme dictates the main craftworld it acts as if you wish to keep it strict, and I do believe that focusedfire was aiming at having the craftworld type mandatory - not optional.

Changing the ongoing topic a bit hear I think Wraithguard need a bit of work personally as they are one of my favorite units that I very rarely get to play cause of how limited they are in game usefulness.

I think a few changes to make the better is to have their cc attacks considered power weapons.
It makes sense fluff wise is they are as they need to be strong enough to carry the wraith cannons weapons that are larger than most imperial heavy weapons, and they are "mini" wraithlords. half the strength still only 1 base attack but with a Str 5 power weapon it will make tar pitting them a bit more dangerous.

Here's a concept for an Eldar assault transport that I've had for a while. It seems to me more like the "Eldar" way to do this (i.e. specialized and efficient).

Talon 115 pts
12/12/10 BS3
Type: Tank, Fast, Skimmer
Transport: A Talon may transport a single unit of infantry up to 8 models.
Access points: 0
Fire points: 0

Wargear: One heavy weapon (costs as per Falcon)
Options: standard vehicle upgrades

Dedicated Transport: Units that my take a Wave Serpent may take a Talon instead

Energy Field: as per Wave Serpent

Eldar Assault: At any point during the Eldar player's turn the Talon may disable the Energy Fields. The Talon is then considered an open-topped vehicle for all purposes (passengers shooting, embarking/disembarking, damage table rolls, etc...). This change remains in effect until the beginning of the Eldar player's next turn.

General description: Picture a falcon with the turret holding the driver and heavy weapon. The front of the main hull is carved out with a floor added underneath/between the "wings" to hold the embarked unit in an open-topped style protected by the Energy Fields.

------------
What do you guys think? I was debating about adding a rule that units assaulting out of the Talon count as having plasma grenades, but thought it might be too much?

@El-dred - I think its generally agreed that to fix Wraithguard they need power weapons, possiby a drop in point cost and maybe to be moved to troop. I'd think around the 20 point mark would make them viable troops if they counted as having power weapons.

@sarukai - I like your suggestion for the vehicle, but I dont think there would reay be room for it as well as the vyper variant that people have been discussing. To be completely honest I prefer your idea though I would however give it a capacity of 10.

@Mahtamori and Focusedfire - Have we come to a general agreement on the craftworld rules? If we want them? If we have the, what they would look like? I get the feeling that focusedfire is alot more convinced about their importance than several other posters. I just think its getting to the point where we might benefit from settling on a few of these big ideas so that we can work off them when discussing the rest of the army, we seem to have a lot up in the air at the moment.

I think if you were to leave them at 35 maybe even jump them to 40 give them a 2+ / 5++ save make them the equivalent of Termies. That is something I think Wraithlords should have as well, a 2+/5++ save as Wraithbone is a self repairing thing.

I think leaving them as Elite w/ the option of taking a full squad of 10 + a Spirit Seer is fine. I'd honestly like to see Banshee's moved out of Elite and put into troops as they are 2nd behind DA as the most abundant of Aspect Warriors, as well as they are not "powerhouse" unit.

I just advise a little caution souping up the Wraithlords too much.

Giving them 4 attacks and multiple weapons NOT twin linked is putting them at or about the same level of power as a Daemon Prince for a cheaper price.

I still think the best option there is making 2 base attacks, increasing the wraithsword price to 15 points from 10, and having it confer 1 extra attack while allowing the re-roll of missed attacks in melee.

That, and anything in wraith armor should get at least a 5+ invul. (If it gives warlocks and farseers a 3/4+, it should confer a minor invul to the constructs as well. That or being undead, give them FnP.)

Don't get me wrong, I love my Wraithlords. They're my favorite models, but they shouldnt be too out of whack.

Mahtamori wrote:

@Sile: Welcome to the discussion. The problem with putting that "read it all" TLDR down there and "I'm not going to read all 13" up on top of the post should be obvious.

FOC: We've already agreed that a reshuffling of the FOC should be avoided.

I think you guys are missing the point that this is a discussion forum, and it doesn't matter what you 'agreed' on, as I've seen some 'agreed on' things that are pretty mental.

Keep the self-love to a minimum, at least he didn't propose specialized Wraithlords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MandalorynOranj wrote:@FocusedFire: I don't mean to sound harsh here but I've noticed you've been really inflexible on a LOT of points. For the past 3 pages or so you've been unwilling to compromise on the KP issue with the aspects, before that it was the limiting of how many squads of aspects you can take, now it's back to the Venoms ONLY being taken as squadrons. Loosen up a little, man.

Now so as not to just be blindly criticizing, I'll offer my views on those points.

As for the Kill Points, maybe integrate Sarukai's squad sizes in and make it so you're only penalized for taking a squad over 8? Dark Reapers obviously would be exempt because of their low max squad sizes.

Regarding the limits on how many squads of each aspect are chosen, I know this has been more or less taken care of but I feel that limiting players in this kind of way is always a bad idea. Sure there might be some balance issues, but isn't the freedom to play the game how you want to more important?

For the Venoms, I see where you're coming from with the squadron thing, but it really doesn't make sense to make people buy at least 3 moderately expensive (money-wise) models to field the same thing they could easily do with one. I'm not saying this is something GW wouldn't do, because they love anything that'll get us to spend even more on their tiny plastic men. Would it really be so bad to let 6-7 guys sit in one Venom?

Anyways, that's just my two cents.

You're spot on here. The OP has a lot of furvor on what he wants done and thinks that because he is the OP that he owns what other people should think. Focused, be a little more understanding to the concepts of the game, the fluff and established rules when coming up with stuff. If you want to make a stand alone game...you have the right idea. But you aren't, this is a GW game with established ideals. Work with them.

Some of your ideas have merit as well.

I think the only things on here that would make their way into a real world codex is parts of the proposed USR(all of the proposed changes is a little 'heavy' for a USR), and the addition of a vehicle assault capability for Banshees(though this hasn't been 'decided upon by the all powerful OP yet'.

@ Farseer Faenyin: Welcome to the discussion.

Please keep criticism focused and to the point. Criticising me for specialized Wraithlords proposition is a swing at the wrong person.
Since you directed this piece of criticism to me, I feel it warranted to defend myself, although I will try to keep it focused and to the point. The response was to someone who admitted he had not bothered to read the discussion he was contributing to at that point. If you think that is a good basis for which to enter a discussion, I will leave that to your own judgement, but it would be poor of me not to bring someone up to date with the on-going discussion, albeit you can have reservations on how to do this.

If you have input or constructive criticism to give regarding the agreed upon things which are "pretty mental", I would love to read it. It is good to have more people joining the discussion, but let's try and avoid discussing the discussion or how people communicate with others any further? I just wish to remind you that a Terminator is going to look very outrageous next to a humble IG Conscript, if none of the units had a point cost written out - which, really, none of the units we're discussing currently has more than a shade of.

Thunderfrog wrote:I just advise a little caution souping up the Wraithlords too much.

Giving them 4 attacks and multiple weapons NOT twin linked is putting them at or about the same level of power as a Daemon Prince for a cheaper price.

I still think the best option there is making 2 base attacks, increasing the wraithsword price to 15 points from 10, and having it confer 1 extra attack while allowing the re-roll of missed attacks in melee.

That, and anything in wraith armor should get at least a 5+ invul. (If it gives warlocks and farseers a 3/4+, it should confer a minor invul to the constructs as well. That or being undead, give them FnP.)

Don't get me wrong, I love my Wraithlords. They're my favorite models, but they shouldnt be too out of whack.

Welcome to the discussion, Thunderfrog!

Once again, it will all come down to price. If a Wraithlord does get 4 base attacks, his price will definitely not remain the same - however regarding the twin-linking, the situation is vastly different simply because of how the costs are written out. Essentially the Wraithlord pays the price for two weapons as if it purchased another weapon it could use, but the end result is only half as good. The precedent is found in the Tau codex where a similar constellation has the second weapon at half price. The proposal in itself was, thus:
Either have the Wraithlord able to purchase the weapons independently and not twin-linking them, or allow the second weapon to be half the price while twin-linking it.

Btw, doesn't the Daemon Prince come with deep striking and a few other special rules? I ask since I haven't had the opportunity to look closely through a Chaos codex.

While Warlocks and Farseers don't wear wraith armour (rune armour might contain wraithbone, but it's vastly different), I think you and I see eye to eye regarding Wraithlords - right down to them being awesome models to work with We don't really want the 3rd edition Wraithlord back (too expensive with a weapon, too cheap without one), either.

Btw, doesn't the Daemon Prince come with deep striking and a few other special rules? I ask since I haven't had the opportunity to look closely through a Chaos codex

They can get wings for 20 points that allows them to deep strike and move like Jump infantry, Which (as far as points go) puts them on par with a wraithlord with sword, flamers/shuricats and starcannon.

I think it might be a good move to redirect the discussion away from slating Focusedfire and back to discussing eldar? sound good to everyone?


I'll try and get the ball rolling, In regards to the CC aspects (which as i've said repeatedly and been ignored) need looking at.

Striking scorpions:

Stats- same as 4ed with +1A
USR- stealth
Wargear- Biting bade- every roll of a 6 on the "to hit" roll allows you to make an additional attack. 6's from additional attack dont confer another bonus attack

Exarch powers-
Master of the shaddows- Improves cover saves by 2 as opposed to the +1 provided by stealth (ala pathfinders)

(cant think of a name)- Gives the unit the Hit and Run USR



Sound good? Any further suggestions? I haven't had any luck thinging of exarch wargear, but see what suggestions you guys have.

They should definitely still have Shadowstrike as an option, the same as it is now. For exarch gear, how about giving them a version of the current Biting Blade that's also a power weapon? Or a Scorpion's Claw that lets him use his regular initiative? It's only S6 so it wouldn't be too OP, and they are eldar, after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or if not have Shadowstrike, at least give the Scout as a USR.

I see Scorpions as the sneaky aspect, so I'd say Infiltrate ought to be a standard USR for them. Possibly Move Through Cover as well. This is especially true if Banshees are given Assault Drill, since then Scorpions really need a delivery method as mechanization doesn't really work all that well for them (unless you really really want a Wave Serpent with Outflanking).

As far as Hit and Run goes, there's only two aspects with staying power: Scorpions and Spiders. Since they already have a high basic number of attacks, and no special rules that only work on the charge (like Banshees do), them staying put until the enemy is dead isn't a bad thing. Additionally, if they do get Hit and Run there would be just about no Eldar unit left without it (army-wide special rule, anyone? Actually, that might be discussed seriously, everyone's saying Eldar ARE cowardly in the first place, so why not prove them right?)

With +1 attack, they need a point increase, even if that's all that changes. Not as high an increase as Banshees would get, but at least 2-3 points per model.

My only real concern is that Scorpions will go through an identity crisis if the distance between number of attacks per point between Banshees (or Harlequins for that matter) and Scorpions decrease. While I don't agree with <score an extra attack on a roll of 6> for Scorpions (Biting Blade already exist and is a really interesting piece of wargear), I get where you're going. Just note it down to my opinion that Scorpions could have it's identity in being the melee version of Pathfinders.

P.S. I think the reason why people've ignored it, Gorechild, is that the Fast Attack section has been an open wound next to a mosquito bite.

P.P.S. I am warming to the idea of having aspect squads limited to 0-1 per FOC (and those bans lifted in Apocalypse, for instance), with the exception of the numerous Dire Avengers. After that you could have Phoenix Lords lift each respective restriction, so if you want to spam Fire Dragons you have to pick Fuegan.

Mahtamori wrote:@ Farseer Faenyin: Welcome to the discussion.

Please keep criticism focused and to the point. Criticising me for specialized Wraithlords proposition is a swing at the wrong person.
Since you directed this piece of criticism to me, I feel it warranted to defend myself, although I will try to keep it focused and to the point. The response was to someone who admitted he had not bothered to read the discussion he was contributing to at that point. If you think that is a good basis for which to enter a discussion, I will leave that to your own judgement, but it would be poor of me not to bring someone up to date with the on-going discussion, albeit you can have reservations on how to do this.

This is exaclty why I think you and Forcused need to take some chill pills. In fact, the Wraithlord comment wasn't directed at you. Ooops? And he has every right to comment on something posted in here lately, even if he didn't read every single post in this topic. Why would you think otherwise? Especially in a topic such as this that jumps around between different rules, models, units, or ideas? Picking up on a part of the subject and commenting on it seems pretty logical to me. He doesn't need to know how some people want super aspect Wraithlords to comment on a rule about Venoms or the new USR. As to bringing him up to date, that is commendable. But if somebody posts something like 'I already made a decision on this, so don't bother' is rather mental.

Back on subject though. From a gaming standpoint, Wraithlords are fine mostly as is. Perhaps some points adjustments to make them more appealing in their role-types. I agree that Eldar, in general, need to feel more like Eldar when played. The USR is a great idea, but it should be simplified a bit to make it clean and have less issues meshing with other rules later.

Possibly replace the Hit and run exarch power with Outflank or Scout then?

Mahtamori, I agree that FA is in a worse state, but everyone was discussing open topped transports, and as their purpous is to get assauting units forward ASAP I couldn't see much point going through the finer detail of the vehicles without defining the units that will need them.

The way I see it (although I seem to be the minority/only one looking at it this way), There isn't really a need for an eldar open topped vehicle. The only unit that really suffer from the way Wave Serpents are currently work, are Banshees. If Scorpions are stealthy, then they should be duarble hoard kiing foot sloggers. Quin's have their Flipbelts and VoT to protect them whilst on foot, which is fluffier than letting them jump out of a transport. Banshees on the other hand, have nothing. Instead of creating new vehicles and things, would it not just be easier to let them assault from Serpents with an exarch power?

This way there are less FA things to sort out. I believe one of Focused's inital goals was to help eldar move away from pure mech builds, so surely it makes more sence to make units that perform better on foot than making new vehicles to create new ways to mech up?

Eldar CC is a mixed bag of very similar math hammer, and are sub par compared to the other main elites choice, which is Fire Dragons.


Banshees have power weapons but fight at St 3, so they need 5's(?) to wound a T4 marine.

Scorpions have 4 str with chainswords, but allow 3 armor saves.

Harlequins have rending and some neat special rules, but have issues with stay power.

Of all the above, I prefer scorpions myself, because you can add a claw in there, and sometimes biting blade is very useful.

Here's something each could probably use to make them more attractive WITHOUT relying on mech.


Scorpions - Giving them fleet and a +1 bonus to their outflank moves when paired with an exarch. Keep their attacks and statline the same.

Banshees - Keep their 5+ save, make it a 4+ at most, make them a troop, and allow them to either take a special rule that allows a Veil of Tears sortve power or an ability that lets them go to ground and still move/run the next turn.

Making Banshees a troop choice really frees up a FoC option, as current metagame almost demands 2 squads of FD's. There's the problem. Taking a single Banshee or single melee elite doesnt offer a lot of redundancy.

Harlequins - Include either a fusion pistol or a kiss in the base cost. Give them Jetbike potential w/ the same cost upgrade as a warlock.

Personally I don't like the idea of venom transports since eldar are a dying race so IMO it doesn't fit the fluff. Eldar vehicles are supposed to be tough enough to get the troops inside wherever they need to safely regardless of cost, AV10 opentopped doesn't fit. I do like sarukai's idea (the Talon) and think it would work well as a wave serpent upgrade.

As for melee aspect warriors I think banshees should get furious charge but NOT 2 base attacks while scorpions get infiltrate standard and possibly +2 attacks when charging. That would differentiate them more and make them both better. Being able to wipe out an enemy unit on a charge but not be able to receive a charge very well seems to me to be very eldar-ish
I would also like to bring back the idea of exarch psychic powers, even if it is just calling crack shot a passive power. It would add to the feel of eldar as a psychic race. As justification: in the exarch description in the current codex it says "It it the presence of the spirit-pool of raw psychic energy [provided by the spirit stones of previous exarchs] that gives the suit and warrior (for the two are indistinguishable) their special warrior powers". So the exarch would get a passive power that helps him (like crack shot or fast shot) or an active power that helps the squad (like a better war shout or defend or withdraw).

I dont like the idea of combat squads since eldar try to utterly destroy their opponents before any retaliation can occur which means devastating force instead of tactically splitting up. instead what about purchasing squads of 4+exarch (0-2 per FOC slot) that can then be turned into combined squads in game but are still worth 1 KP each. Warp spiders, reapers and shining spears would be bought as 2+exarch. That way the eldar army has more KP than most and can also have lots of small squads of aspect warriors or larger squads with 2 exarchs instead of 1 sergeant (to represent the additional expertise of eldar forces).
Also- if aspect warriors become WS5 or BS5 then they would probably need to kept to smaller, expensive squads (if every shot hits then there need to be less shots fired to achieve balance).

Gorechild wrote:Possibly replace the Hit and run exarch power with Outflank or Scout then?

Mahtamori, I agree that FA is in a worse state, but everyone was discussing open topped transports, and as their purpous is to get assauting units forward ASAP I couldn't see much point going through the finer detail of the vehicles without defining the units that will need them.

The way I see it (although I seem to be the minority/only one looking at it this way), There isn't really a need for an eldar open topped vehicle. The only unit that really suffer from the way Wave Serpents are currently work, are Banshees. If Scorpions are stealthy, then they should be duarble hoard kiing foot sloggers. Quin's have their Flipbelts and VoT to protect them whilst on foot, which is fluffier than letting them jump out of a transport. Banshees on the other hand, have nothing. Instead of creating new vehicles and things, would it not just be easier to let them assault from Serpents with an exarch power?

This way there are less FA things to sort out. I believe one of Focused's inital goals was to help eldar move away from pure mech builds, so surely it makes more sence to make units that perform better on foot than making new vehicles to create new ways to mech up?

While I agree in general, there is a remarkable lack of Scorpions (and to a lesser degree Banshees) in mechanized lists in general. With 4 (5) Elite choices and only one of them actually working out of a Transport, is there any surprised the mechanized lists spam Fire Dragons? Just because Scorpions would make excellent sneaky troops and just because we want to make non-mechanized lists more viable in general, doesn't mean we can't fix some of the discrepancies in the mechanized lists - which are very spammy and does not contain much variation in the tank contents.
In other words, what I'm trying to say is that it's not WRONG to fix problems with mechanized lists or make the mechanized lists more varied - since it's THE mechanized list we're trying to avoid (DAVU and Dragon Serpents with Jet-Council and Prism Spam on the side).

Here's the problems with Scorpions, thus:
* In a foot list they can infiltrate, but they will do so unsupported since Rangers do not complement Scorpions and the rest of the army are unable to infiltrate. In general this is fine, Scorpions are rather good at playing multi-purpose assault unit since they have a decent strength and attack amount, but many armies are able to bring in melee or assault-weapon troop choices as infiltrators.
* In a mechanized list, they can't charge out of a vehicle. This means that a mechanized list is not really about mechanizing infantry in Eldar's case, it's more a case of building a tank army which can drop payloads from the cargo in the form of Fire Dragons.
* In a hybrid or Saim-Hann host (and I don't mean mechanization), Scorpions aren't very mobile. Giving the fleet could change this, but then they need Jetbikes, and Fast Attack aspects to be worth using to complement them.

It is, in the end, all about the interaction between the different elements of the army. Eldar isn't an army you build a theme around a certain type of unit (like you can do with other armies), but rather a certain type of movement. Thunderfrog put it well (although Banshees are 4+ already, mate )

@ Thunderfrog: The current meta-game demands 2 FD squads simply because Guardians are the only troop option to be able to field AT weapons, and they are extremely bad at it. In addition, the general Eldar meta-game demands most units capable of heavy weapons to use Scatter Laser or Shuriken Cannons to deal with squads and transports. This means that the army in general is low on S8 lancing.
I believe that a fix to this may be, simply, that the other squads in general grow better at actually using their AT weapons. For instance, one single Guardian squad capable of having redundant amount of AT shots (yes, I know this may make them simply dish out even more S6 shots) or Vypers and Hawks in general becoming more attractive.
Having Harlequins use Fusion Pistols as base is interesting, in that respect, of course, but there is the issue of the staying power.

P.S. There's another good candidate for an (nearly) army-wide special rule in Thunderfrog's post - unless the unit is pinned, going to ground incurs no movement penalties.

Been away for awhile. Good to see the discussions and the new input!

Couple of thoughts to share.

RETURN OF THE CRAFTWORLDS:

I like the idea of highlighting the craftworlds but also not making them necessarily better than a non-GW named craftworld by making the craftworld specific come at a cost. I would propose doing that by making the craftworld a requirement of taking an autarch with an add-on cost.

Alaitoc - All rangers are pathfinders. +100 cost to autarch. Same effects as pathfinders today but no additional cost. All other craftworlds are limited to rangers. (Note the +100 means you would need to field at least 20 pathfinders to may it "pay off" versus today's codex.)

Biel-tan - Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees as troops. +50 cost to the autarch. All other craftworlds they remain Elites.

Ulthwe - Defender unit size of 10 to 20 qualifying for 1 platform per 6. +25 cost to the autarch. All other craftworld guardians limited to 10 and 1 platform.

Iyaden- Wraithguard as troops and wraith lords as elites or heavies. +50 cost to the autarch. All other craftworlds Wraithguard are elites and Wraith Lords are heavies.

Saim Hann - Bikes are troops and Shining Spears as elites. +50 cost to the autarch. All other craftworld bikes and shining spears are fast attack.

I feel this would make someone think before building a craftworld-specific army but provide benefits to them. This still leaves the generic craftworld with options/advantages by not requiring 1 of 2 HQ slots to be taken as an autarch and at a fairly significant cost.

ASPECT WARRIORS:

I have spoken my piece before on viewing all the aspects as a whole and addressing their stat lines. With that as a given, I will focus on outfitting and aspect abilities.
My premise was that there are three basic stat lines - shooting, general, close combat aspect with stats leaning to one or the other.

Striking Scorpions: Close Combat Aspect. Weapons and exarch options as today.
Stealth: Infiltrate and 3d6 for moving through difficult terrain.
Shadow: +1 to all cover saves. (i.e. If normal is +4 cover save, they get +3)
Howling banshees: Close Combat Aspec. Weapons and exarch options as today.
War shout: As today.
Acrobatics: May assault on turn of disembarking. (Just my preference to the transport Vyper.)
Dire Avenger: General Aspect Weapons and exarch options as today.
Bladestorm & Defend as today.
Swooping Hawks: Shooting Aspect. Weapons and exarch options as today.
Skyleap: Ability to use grenade template as fly-over target option each turn. (No more yo-yo hawks.)
No worse than 4+ to hit a vehicle with grenades.
Warp Spiider: General Aspect. Weapon and exarch options as today.
Hit & Run and Surprise Assault. Surprise assault means they have the normal defender in terrain rules when they assault. This means spiders will go first in assault unless you have defensive grenades and then you go at initiative.

Shining Spears: Close Combat Aspect. Weapons and exarch options as today.
Skilled Rider and Hit & Run

Dark Reapers: Shooting Aspect. Exarch options as today. Weapons - pending further discussion.
Relentless & Tank Hunter or Fast Shot or Crack Shot.
(Personally I think Relentless is better than Slow and Purposeful this leaves them "fast" for a heavy choice but unlike all the other foot aspects no fleet of foot. Tank Hunter/Fast Shot/Crack Shot is the other aspect ability and would be dependent on the final Reaper Launcher stat line.
Example Heavy S5 AP3 48" ROF2 I like tank hunter or crack shot
Heavy S7 AP3 48" ROF1 I like Fast Shot to maintain a true ROF of 1.
Heavy S5 AP3 48" ROF1 Blast I like Crack Shot to make cover ineffective against the template.

Oh, I almost forgot the Fire Dragons. General Aspect. Weapons and exarch options as today but return PF option for exarch.
Crack Shot - no cover saves against their shots. Tank Hunter.

@Mahtamori - I dont think that (without hitting wave serpents VERY hard with the nerf bat) you'd be able to remove some Eldar armies dependance on them. The 5th ed meta game is very transport orientated, So its not just the codex's fault that we see so many serpents and dragons. The problem is just as much the Rule books fault as it is the eldar dex. What we need to do is make the 90+ points you would spend on a transport an option rather than a necessity.

The way I'd like to see it is that Striking Scorpions, could have a 100 point transport to get them forward untouched. Or they could outflank/infiltrate and spend the 100 points on bulking up their squad and giving them a neat exarch power.

Another thing I'd like to point out Mahtamori, they wouldn't be arriving alone if the previous suggestion (sorry I cant remember who said it) of allowing reserves to enter in groups was included in the dex.


@DAaddict - I'm not sure about the craftworld idea as a whole, but I think your idea of paying points for the benefit (rather than giving a possitive and a negative effect) is an improvement. I see Iyanden and Biel Tan as being far better than the others, which might lead to alot of similar builds, but if we do go for craftworld rules (I still have no idea what most people's views on the matter are!) we could re-assess them for ballance.

As I've previously said, I think reaper launchers are good as they are, and as far as Dark Reaper wargear goes, Only the exarch's need looking at really. I think S+P is a fair trade off for heavy support that can move and shoot, relentless is a little OTT, we want their base point cost reduced after all

Just remember what we were like in 4th Ed with the Craftworld Rules.

It was very limiting and Biel Tan was pretty good.

Sile wrote:Just remember what we were like in 4th Ed with the Craftworld Rules.

It was very limiting and Biel Tan was pretty good.

Biel Tan was pretty good and as previosly stated so were the old Alaitoc and Iyaden in different ways. Ulthuwe (other than the limitless Seer Coucil) and Saim Hann were not so amazing. I just like the options to be there at a cost. By limiting the options of the non-specific craftworld armies. (Wraithguard back to elites, Pathfinders only for Alaitoc, bikes back to fast attack for all but Saim Hann. etc.) You have the choice to focus your army that the craftworld codex gave you rather than the current codex philosophy of one codex for all. As proposedm by being forced to take an autarch, it does come at a cost. It also gives a specific role for an autarch other than improved reserve rolls.

Biel Tan reduces the pressure on Elite slots by moving SS and HB to troops.
Alaitoc gives superior rangers (pathfinders).
Saim Hann gives incentives to bikes and reduces pressure on Fast Attack Slots.
Iyaden relieves pressure on Heavy and Elites with incentives to Wraith units.
Ulthuwe allows for larger guardian units with heavy concentration of platforms.

Depending on the changes to unit types and costs, it doesn't directly resolve the dependence on transports or the superiority of Dire Avengers and Fire Dragons but it does present a reason to field unit types that are second or third tier choices in the current environment.
l
The biggest change/loss is the skimmer rules and secondary weapon firing of 3/4 Ed. When your opponent doesn't autoglance, even though they could kill under the old charts, suddenly your 12 armor rating is pretty crappy by comparison when relatively cheap Autocannons and Missile Launchers can down you. Couple of changes might bring back survivability to eldar vehicle upgrades:

Holofield means you are automatically considered in cover. The two dice is nice but reducing KILL results back to meltas and rail rifles should make the vehicles survive better.

Some upgrade to allow a vehicle to fire a second weapon rather than a defensive weapon only when moving at 12". Perhaps build this into a Falcon as built-in. This would
make a Falcon much more appealing than it is today.

Some form of night vision. Always bothered me about the eldar. IG, DH, WH, SM & CSM have the sense to put searchlights on vehicles. Tau have the sense to have a night vision upgrade. The elder tech race the Eldar don't have the sense of a goose to enhance their night fighting capability.

Vectored Engines. Might be OTT but perhaps allow so equipped vehicles to pivot in the assault phase of a turn. Works with the vehicle models as-designed to be able to disembark troop in front of an opponent without leaving their @$$ end exposed.

I was always under the impression(perhaps falsely from games at my FLGS), that Ulthuwe was competitive in 4th.

Mounted Farseers with Warlocks(non-Council obviously), Wave Serpented Storm Guardians at WS4, and deadly 'drop off' tactics of Defender Guardians without platforms, and the ability of good anti-tank troop units with platforms.

I know they weren't as predominant in friendly games as Biel-Tan or as powerful as Alaitoc...but still very viable.

Gorechild wrote:Another thing I'd like to point out Mahtamori, they wouldn't be arriving alone if the previous suggestion (sorry I cant remember who said it) of allowing reserves to enter in groups was included in the dex.

(blowing own trumpet) That was me by the way (/trumpet) If you could combine that with the ideas about the autarch allowing a unit to outflank there could be some pretty decent outflanking combinations going on. With the scorpions armour and more numbers (by spending transport points on models instead) they could hold out for a while and do some serious damage on their own.

Gorechild wrote:I'm not sure about the craftworld idea as a whole, but I think your idea of paying points for the benefit (rather than giving a possitive and a negative effect) is an improvement. I see Iyanden and Biel Tan as being far better than the others, which might lead to alot of similar builds, but if we do go for craftworld rules (I still have no idea what most people's views on the matter are!) we could re-assess them for ballance.

The craftworld ideas i admit are better than some i've seen or thought of, but in my opinion i feel the current set up of having the freedom to mix and match is nice. Although messing around with the force org chart could still keep most of this freedom to choose but simply give more/better options. Another thing to consider would be if your army list is of a specific craftworld (for example, x amount of ranger units per y points, x jetbike mounted unites for y points, etc) there could be a bonus rules or stat to those units. nothing to big, but an incentive to specialise into one craftworld.

Gorechild wrote:As I've previously said, I think reaper launchers are good as they are, and as far as Dark Reaper wargear goes, Only the exarch's need looking at really. I think S+P is a fair trade off for heavy support that can move and shoot, relentless is a little OTT, we want their base point cost reduced after all

DARK REAPERS

Statline: WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
Dark Reaper: 3 5 3 3 1 4 1 9 3+
Reaper Exarch: 4 6 3 3 2 5 2 9 3+

SPECIAL RULES
Infantry.

WARGEAR
Reaper launcher: The reaper missile launcher has the following profile:
Range: 48” S: 5 AP: 3 Heavy 1

EXARCH WARGEAR
Tempest Launcher: The Exarch has an ancient reaper launcher that fires clusters of small reaper missiles in a great arc. It has the following profile:
Range: G48” S: 4 AP: 3 Heavy 2, ignores cover, pinning

EXARCH POWERS
Fast shot: The unit is adept at laying down a lethal hail of fire from any weapon, firing shot after shot into the enemy. The unit may add 1 to the number of shots fired by their weapons (example, Heavy 1 becomes Heavy 2)
Crack shot: The members of the unit are supreme masters of ranged combat, able to pinpoint their targets with unerring accuracy while on the move. The unit gains the USR: Slow and Purposeful. Crack shot may not be used in the same turn as Fast Shot. The tempest Launcher may not fire indirect while using with crack shot

Well thers my take on the reapers from the fan-dex im working on. The WS/BS isn't set, i was considering changing some aspects to WS/BS = 3/5, 5/3 or 4/4 depending on their role, but BS5 on the reapers IMO is alot more useful that WS5 on the combat troops. Havn't got the points worked out but making the Exarch powers expensive should solve some cost issues. Without them you get cheap heavy 1 reapers. With just the one you get your Heavy 2 or Slow and purposeful at a moderate cost. Taking the two would be kind of a waste as you can't use the two together and would cost the same, if not more than the current set up.
The only downside to this is the Exarch looses the old crackshot ability, which i did find highly effective with the tempest launcher, a third power could be introduced to bring it back under a different name, or change the name of the slow and purposeful power... but that would entail writing a third rule in for all the other aspects, which i am currently to lazy to do.

DAaddict wrote:The biggest change/loss is the skimmer rules and secondary weapon firing of 3/4 Ed. When your opponent doesn't autoglance, even though they could kill under the old charts, suddenly your 12 armor rating is pretty crappy by comparison when relatively cheap Autocannons and Missile Launchers can down you. Couple of changes might bring back survivability to eldar vehicle upgrades:

Holofield means you are automatically considered in cover. The two dice is nice but reducing KILL results back to meltas and rail rifles should make the vehicles survive better.

Interesting, i do find holofield effective as they are but anything AP1 generally gets a decent roll anyway and recently i've seen people roll double 6 far to many times. I'd much prefer to have the security of my vehicles in my own dice rolling hands where i can coax them into doing what i want. As is the dice my opponent are rolling are immune to my mutterings, unless they decide to roll mine (bad idea, my dice hate everyone except me) [/superstition]
Cover doesn't seem right to me but i can't think of anything better just yet, at least not a basic 4+ as that can be gained from moving flat-out. If anything the auto-cover would result in an Eldar army slowing down, i'd much prefer to have to Eldar army speeding up, which brings me to your next point...

DAaddict wrote:Some upgrade to allow a vehicle to fire a second weapon rather than a defensive weapon only when moving at 12". Perhaps build this into a Falcon as built-in. This would
make a Falcon much more appealing than it is today.

I like, many times i've slowed down to a 6" crawl just to i can pump out some extra shooting, this upgrade could work very well, very well indeed. I'd like it now actually.

DAaddict wrote:Some form of night vision. Always bothered me about the eldar. IG, DH, WH, SM & CSM have the sense to put searchlights on vehicles. Tau have the sense to have a night vision upgrade. The elder tech race the Eldar don't have the sense of a goose to enhance their night fighting capability.

And i'm pretty sure one of the battle mission scenarios for Eldar uses night-fighting in the first turn...
But yes, i'm more inclined to go for the night vision stlye over the searchlight option, i don't see the Eldar putting themselves in the line of fire by waving lamps around in the dark.
A new way to do this could be using light outside of the visable spectrum. Similar to a searchlight but it doesn't make you a target yourself.
Or some sort of wraithbone relay, if a vehicle/unit spots an enemy maybe other vehicles/units in an X area can spot them aswell.

DAaddict wrote:Vectored Engines. Might be OTT but perhaps allow so equipped vehicles to pivot in the assault phase of a turn. Works with the vehicle models as-designed to be able to disembark troop in front of an opponent without leaving their @$$ end exposed.

Would work well, and possibly OTT. Basically having the same effect as the front access mentioned before without the idea of the pilot falling out of the tank. If the banshees get the 'may assault as though the vehicle was open-topped' or one of those open-topped vehicles (talon and venom/asp/vyper/thing) this idea might not be needed as much and i'd like not to have to rip parts of the rulebook up any more... you know? like the good old days?

Step1: You starting an Eldar army.
Step2: Make sure you buy and read the BGB.
Step3: Make sure you buy and read the Eldar codex.
Step4: Tear out 90% of the BGB, it does not apply to you, your Eldar.

Farseer Faenyin wrote:I was always under the impression(perhaps falsely from games at my FLGS), that Ulthuwe was competitive in 4th.
Mounted Farseers with Warlocks(non-Council obviously), Wave Serpented Storm Guardians at WS4, and deadly 'drop off' tactics of Defender Guardians without platforms, and the ability of good anti-tank troop units with platforms.
I know they weren't as predominant in friendly games as Biel-Tan or as powerful as Alaitoc...but still very viable.

There were 4 Eldar armies in my store in 4th, one Alaitoc, one Ulthwe, 2 Beil-Tan. No one really had the cash for Saim-hann or Iyanden and they didn't see the point in those lists at the time considering the usual opponents. The Alaitoc list performs well most of the time, the Beil-Tan armies doing ok but there were alot of armies able to simply take out the most offensive units to them while the Ulthwe list was the strongest of the lot.
Either the Ulthwe player was simply better than the others or the Ulthwe list worked well back then, i'm not to sure on the matter.

--------------------

I have no idea if the above makes any sence as i've just had a hard day at work, and i tend to ramble on about random things at times... but be patient, i do come up with something useful now and again.

Well, DAaddict, I'm not certain I agree that Warp Spiders or Swooping Hawks should have "weapons like today" and I feel the new incarnation of Skyleap is even worse than the yo-yo hawks. Why?
* Currently, Spiders and Hawks are taken with far less frequency than other choices. They don't kill enough for their points, they aren't as mobile as a Wave Sepent, and they don't provide much in terms of tactical advantage that you can't find in other places. Something needs to be done with them, and they also need to be different from each other since they currently have exactly the same application, both of them.
* Skyleap currently gives the hawks a rough once-every-so-often a good artillery strike for taking out infantry. It takes the Hawks out of the action a lot, but it also keeps them safe. The proposed skyleap would mean that the weapon range of 24" would mean diddly squat and it might as well be reduced to 6" and have the points returned to them. Additionally, with only a 12" jump range it'll often be hard to get over a squad - not to mention you'll likely get assaulted and killed the round after you tried it. I think the grenade packs need to go entirely or be replaced with something that's functional.

@ Gorechild: Not that I can think very straight right now, but I think I was referring to how a group of Infiltrating Scorpions would infiltrate all along, hard pressed to kill Marines without Banshees and a Farseer (by the way, that particular reliance is something that needs to be addressed) nearby. If they are outflanking, on the other hand, then neither of those two can outflank, either. It's a multi-step process to get Eldar melee to actually function.
As for Wave Serpents, it's not a matter of removing them or nerfing the army for using it, but rather to get the dysfunctional parts of the codex working. Fire Dragons in a Serpent? Check, working just dandy. Scorpions in a Serpent? Hmm, not working so well since you can't charge until turn three earliest (are eldar the only army who has to do this from their transports?). Banshees in a Serpent? Not working at all, unless you drop them off very cleverly.
Serpents are also not all that good on their own. It's the only option Eldar has, and it's a solid option since it's a decently armed tank and all, but for what they do you still pay a bit much for them. Ironically.

What GW CAN do with the next codex is provide options. Make the dropping off of troops less of a logistical nightmare. Make the melee elements able to actually work on their own. Make the Fast Attack options worthwhile over taking a Serpent and DAVU or another Dragon-Serpent. And so on.

@ dayve110: I'd pay at most 15 points for those Reapers, and that's cutting my own throat (Discworld reference). You've nerfed them down to where they need an Exarch with a power in order to function only slightly better than their current incarnation and another power to get them mobile. While the concept of giving them mobility in the Exarch merits thought, I don't think nerfing them is the way to go when no one takes them since they are useless in their own performance even when they are allowed to stand and shoot without getting charged (where you've increased their survivability slightly but reduced their killing power)

P.S. You need to give the Tempest Launcher a template if it's going to fire in-direct and you can't have it be ranged guess if it's going to fire direct This is what you're after:
Range: 48” S: 4 AP: 3 Heavy 2, ignores cover, pinning, blast, barrage
Crack shot: The members of the unit are supreme masters of ranged combat, able to pinpoint their targets with unerring accuracy while on the move. The unit gains the USR: Slow and Purposeful. Crack shot may not be used in the same turn as Fast Shot. If Crack Shot is used, the Exarch's Tempest Launcher is not considered Barrage for the following shooting phase.

MandalorynOranj wrote:@FocusedFire: I don't mean to sound harsh here but I've noticed you've been really inflexible on a LOT of points. For the past 3 pages or so you've been unwilling to compromise on the KP issue with the aspects, before that it was the limiting of how many squads of aspects you can take, now it's back to the Venoms ONLY being taken as squadrons. Loosen up a little, man.

Now so as not to just be blindly criticizing, I'll offer my views on those points.

As for the Kill Points, maybe integrate Sarukai's squad sizes in and make it so you're only penalized for taking a squad over 8? Dark Reapers obviously would be exempt because of their low max squad sizes.

Regarding the limits on how many squads of each aspect are chosen, I know this has been more or less taken care of but I feel that limiting players in this kind of way is always a bad idea. Sure there might be some balance issues, but isn't the freedom to play the game how you want to more important?

For the Venoms, I see where you're coming from with the squadron thing, but it really doesn't make sense to make people buy at least 3 moderately expensive (money-wise) models to field the same thing they could easily do with one. I'm not saying this is something GW wouldn't do, because they love anything that'll get us to spend even more on their tiny plastic men. Would it really be so bad to let 6-7 guys sit in one Venom?

1)Inflexible??, I've re-written the AWSR 3 times now in an attempt to be accomodating. Each time I have included what Mahtamori and company have asked for, but in a balanced manner that used systems already existant in the game or have a precedent in the game. If I seem inflexible it is because some in this thread have been pushing for fanboi levels of uberness that I am not willing to accept.
If I seem tense it might be because what was supposed to be a thread about focused discussions on the fundemental issues with the current Eldar, finding a general consensus as to the fundemantal theme of the Eldar and possibly redirecting them back to being a more varied and closer to fluff Army has instead become a wish thread. It was my overall goal that the thread could possibly help each of us see how the other players view the Eldar in a manner that promoted a greater understanding of what the Eldar used to be, what they are and maybe what they should be.

2)As to the KP and squad splitting, It was a simpler mechanism than just completely destroying the FOC as others were proposing(6 elites, 6 FA, 6Heavy Support slots that get compounded when adding a PL that makes the unit a troop choice. As to any further discussion on the proposal....I think that I am done

3)No, Balance is the primary focus. If you fail to balance the army then you break the game with a ridiculously OP dex(CTM or web of skulls anyone?) that will hurt the game overall.

4)My main 2 problems with the single venom is:
a)Too Cheap(That level of cheddar is saved for the SMs)
b)Would look like a clown car trying to fit six models on it(Eldar get too many such jokes already)

Mahtamori wrote:@focusedfire: No, sacrificing balance is strictly your point of view. There are plenty of ways of adding special rules and specialization to a squad without appending several layers of rules text no 14 year old Spess Mahreen player will ever understand.
The volatility of splitting squads in game is that it's difficult to keep track of if you've got a lot of squads running around. Additionally, having squads of very small size also has drawback in terms of suspense of disbelief.
For this proposal to get anywhere it needs structure. Clear cut; how will I keep track of it, when can I do it, how may the squads look like and so on.

My most basic reaction is KISS (Keep it simple, stupid). The simplest way is, thus:
An Eldar Aspect Warrior unit may at any point in the Movement Phase split into two units by moving a portion of the unit out of coherency with the rest of the unit. Both units will after that point act as entirely different units for all purposes. Here's a few highlights:
* How to treat casualties prior to the split is NOT dealt with and MUST be dealt with
* An Aspect Warrior unit may split multiple times, no need to attempt to keep track of it
* Each time a unit is destroyed, it provides a KP. Splitting a unit for tactical advantage has additional drawbacks if you fail, while you can protect your points by not using this tactical advantage.
* A minimum size for a split squad should also be imposed. A "unit" of 1 aspect warrior split from a unit of 8 is a bit silly.

The third bullet point highlights my stand point the most. I think you should get punished only if you take the risk and fail, not if you don't take the risk and still fail. This creates a dynamic situation, while still keeping it a lot more simple. This is also what I mean with not attaching special rules and so on since often you can achieve similar results by simpler paths.

One possible way to avoid problems with original squad sizes and so on is to assign a new rule I'll call Determination of a Dying Breed - As the race diminishes and more souls join the infinity circle, the Eldar warriors become ever more accustomed to fighting in small groups and in desperate situations. These Eldar units never suffer drawbacks associated with being fewer than full unit strength and may always regroup regardless of losses.
Again, I'd like to point out the difference between special special rules (which I dislike) and special rules (which I like). Suspending or invoking known concepts is a special rule (such as Living Metal or Shadowstrike), while making up entirely new situations and assigning special rules to those situations... is not.

1) If I am the only one that feels that you push for too much then it is a sign that the thread has become a fanboi wishlist, something I was trying to keep in check but was doomed when you introduced your wish-list. Need I remind you that you were the one pushing to make the codex into a Biel-Tan list with no drawbacks. You were wanting to move the aspects to the troops and the gaurdians to the Elites and Heavy Support. There are many such instances in this thread. Now this has not really bothered me because our diverging viewpoints have helped to spur the discussion and the introduction of new ideas.

2)As to keeping things simple. I have constantly stiven for such. Take what you propose as being major issues with my ideas(BTW, some of these ideas that you object to are actually your ideas reworked for balance). First, instead of being constructive you seem to automatically dismiss the idea if I propose it. Also, the problems you claim exist make no sense to me. Second, You fail to see the issues with your proposed shattering of the FOC.
Here, lets look at the ideas and their issues:

a)What you feel are issues with my idea-
Small Squads cause a suspense of Disbelief?? Tell that to the Tau or to any player running min sized squads.

*No need for special treatment for casualties before squad is split because it is "Before"the squad splits. This means that it is one squad until the split, to think that they would need special treatment is a failure to apply K.I.S.S.. In other words the unit must abide by all of the restictions of being a single unit untill it splits because there is nothing saying otherwise.
*Squad splitting can easily be corrected with a "One time" addition to the wording,........... Or you could let people find out the results of trying to split the unit that may times. There are some cool tactical options it would open up in game. The fact that they could do it only once a turn would mean that the chances of seeing 10 independent Aspects from a single squad would be non-existant. Remember, If they are in transports then one will have to get out as soon as the split(As per current rules in the BGB)
*The KP are easily handled as per my original suggestion of having the squad able to split once and the unit always worth 2KP. No special special rule here, just your nrfusual to work with the idea.
*I believe that I already covered that the squads would split in half.(You are creating a non-existant problem here.)

Your proposed Dying breed is a Special Special rule and treads to heavily upon the SMs. Many of the recent proposals by you and others tresspass upon what should be other armies territories. It was because of this that I worked so hard to make the Eldar version fit the Eldar ideal of precisely applied force.

b)Now my problems with your 2 Squads per FOC idea-
*This equals 6 Elites, 6 Fa, and 6 HS
*What happens to the rule when a Phoenix lord makes the units into scoring troops?(Would need a Special Specialrule for this)
*This could mean 6 Wave serpents from the Elites section alone(Increases Dependence upon Mech
*What is to prevent an all FD in Wave Serp list?

Ediin wrote:However, I dont think giving them a slightly improved ''Combat Squad'' rule will do it. Why do Aspect Warriors need Combat Squads?

IMO, a better way to make Aspect Warriors more useful is to give Assault-based Aspects the ''Furious Charge'' USR, and Shooty-Aspects a rule that says they can run and still shoot?

1) The reason for the Eldar to have a distinct version of Combat squads is because of the concept of precision. Throwing 8-10 Fire Dragons at a single tank is a waste of manpower. I can see keeping them together to combat a deathstar unit like nob bikers or MC squads. Squad splitting is about giving the Eldar the option to apply the precisely needed force when and where neccessary. It is the concept of conserving life instead of throwing away 10 FD to take out a Land Raider.

2)I like the idea of moving towards USRs for the Exarchs and have proposed such. While I don't mind the Eldar having unique rules my stance on this is that GW has been moving towards standardized rules and I can see the benefit of stream-lined rules.

Gorechild wrote:So what happens if a full unit sufferes casuaties in a way that they are no longer in coherency? Would they be forced to form two squads?
I think (without wanting to sound overly critical) that being able to possibly have 10 "units" of 1 man is stupid. Your basically making a rule that allows you to choose to treat every model in a squad as an IC and it would cause mayhem regarding multiple combats and things like that. If you split up everything then your opponent can only kill one model per turn.

Although I do like the idea of venom's I'd see them as a 'Quin transport only. Its hard to debate vehicles for units when we havent talked about the units themselves yet
I see scorps as needing improvement to make them a stelthy foot slogging unit, but to do that we would have to discuss them. I think Quins, Banshees and scorps would be a good thing to discuss soon.

Another note regarding Spiders, I think if they had a maximum size of 6 in a unit and change them to template S3 rending, monofilament wire (like nightspinner) they wouldnt be OP. although, If your allowing them to split into as many little squads as possible, the ability to bog down 6 units is insane.

1)Unit would have to consolodate as per the BGB. The unit is still a single unit until it splits. BGB says (Paraphrased) that Single units out of coherency must move into coherency before doing anything else.

2)I said the squad would split in half, not quarters or eighths. Now this is not to say that discussing such should be out. I think that there are some tactical merits to this splitting to the point of a voluntary shattering of the glass hammer. It seems that it would be self balancing in some ways

3)I Like the Name DeathAdder for my proposed version which is a bit different from the original Venom.

4)As to discussing the other aspects, go for it. Mahtamori has pretty much co-opted the thread as his own so, you guys have fun. Real life is going to keep me occupied for a while so my participation in this thread will be sporadic at best from here on out.

5)You know that I am right there with you on the Warp Spiders.

Sile wrote:IMO splitting squads just doesn't seem Eldar. Like; Eldar are about the overwhelming precise application of force, not splitting up to be flexible.

As it stands, splitting up a squad fluff wise seems very un-Eldar.

Also something thats nagging me but no biggie, but does Venom really sound like a Craftworld Eldar name? :v It fits DE and Harlies perfectly, but I dunno about Craftworld Eldar

Maybe something like the Swift or Eagle or something. There is a trend with Eldar vehicle names, and it tends to be some kind of animal; except for the prism and spinner.

Devil's advocate here :v :v

1)About squad splitting. To me it fits the Eldar fluff perfectly, I am not saying that you have to agree, only that you consider my reasons for proposing the ideas.

a)The Eldar are about precision and squad splitting lets the Eldar apply more precisely controlled levels of force.
b)Squad spltting conserves lives(Something important to a dying breed.)
c)The split squads will allow the few Eldar to be everywhere(Like Ninjas ). This forces the opponent to make difficult decisions on where to focus their fire.
d)Eldar are supposed to be like an inticate flowing ballet and the Squad splitting allows for that level of intricacy.


2)As to the Venom, I agree about the name. When I proposed the idea originally people kept telling me about the Venom. Personally, I like the name Death Adders.

Mahtamori wrote:

Sile wrote:IMO splitting squads just doesn't seem Eldar. Like; Eldar are about the overwhelming precise application of force, not splitting up to be flexible.

As it stands, splitting up a squad fluff wise seems very un-Eldar.

Agreed in full.

Yet independently fieldable 5 man squads that take up half a FOC slot are OK with you. I find this amusing in that My proposal for squad splitting was based off of this idea of yours and now you claim it is un-eldar. Seriously, It seems like you disagree with my ideas simply because they come from me. Squad splitting is your idea that I set in an already existing format and you claim that it is Special Special.

Mahtamori wrote:

Sile wrote:Also something thats nagging me but no biggie, but does Venom really sound like a Craftworld Eldar name? :v It fits DE and Harlies perfectly, but I dunno about Craftworld Eldar

Maybe something like the Swift or Eagle or something. There is a trend with Eldar vehicle names, and it tends to be some kind of animal; except for the prism and spinner.

Devil's advocate here :v :v

Yes, Venom is a Harlequin name, not a Craftworld Eldar. Keeping with the name association with snakes (Wave Serpent and Vyper) how about Sand Krait? I'm not very good with snake etymology, and it was the best sounding name I could come up with.

Death Adder. I only went with the Venom name because everyone said my squadron idea was the same as the old single harlie transport and I didn't want to argue over something so trivial.

sarukai wrote:Here's a concept for an Eldar assault transport that I've had for a while. It seems to me more like the "Eldar" way to do this (i.e. specialized and efficient).

Talon 115 pts
12/12/10 BS3
Type: Tank, Fast, Skimmer
Transport: A Talon may transport a single unit of infantry up to 8 models.
Access points: 0
Fire points: 0

Wargear: One heavy weapon (costs as per Falcon)
Options: standard vehicle upgrades

Dedicated Transport: Units that my take a Wave Serpent may take a Talon instead

Energy Field: as per Wave Serpent

Eldar Assault: At any point during the Eldar player's turn the Talon may disable the Energy Fields. The Talon is then considered an open-topped vehicle for all purposes (passengers shooting, embarking/disembarking, damage table rolls, etc...). This change remains in effect until the beginning of the Eldar player's next turn.

General description: Picture a falcon with the turret holding the driver and heavy weapon. The front of the main hull is carved out with a floor added underneath/between the "wings" to hold the embarked unit in an open-topped style protected by the Energy Fields.

------------
What do you guys think? I was debating about adding a rule that units assaulting out of the Talon count as having plasma grenades, but thought it might be too much?

Yep its Eldar alright, Dark Eldar. This is one of those ideas that comes real close to completely stepping all over another armies territory/niche. To me it would be simpler to give the Vypers/Death Adders the Energy prow, this would fit with the Craftworld Eldar without blatantly Copy pasta-ing a DE transport into the army.

Gorechild wrote:@El-dred - I think its generally agreed that to fix Wraithguard they need power weapons, possiby a drop in point cost and maybe to be moved to troop. I'd think around the 20 point mark would make them viable troops if they counted as having power weapons.

@sarukai - I like your suggestion for the vehicle, but I dont think there would reay be room for it as well as the vyper variant that people have been discussing. To be completely honest I prefer your idea though I would however give it a capacity of 10.

@Mahtamori and Focusedfire - Have we come to a general agreement on the craftworld rules? If we want them? If we have the, what they would look like? I get the feeling that focusedfire is alot more convinced about their importance than several other posters. I just think its getting to the point where we might benefit from settling on a few of these big ideas so that we can work off them when discussing the rest of the army, we seem to have a lot up in the air at the moment.

1)I agree about the Wraithguard attacks becoming power weapon attacks, but think that the price will need to be closer to 30 points and if they get an inv save then they would have to be about 5-10 points more than a terminator with stormshield.

2)You are aware that the Talon would be in effect a DE transport in a Craftworld army. I only say this because I am keen upon each army maintaining its unique flavor. Heck, this is why I started the thread, I feel that the Eldar last a lot of their flavor between the last 'dex and the 5th ed BGB. I would like to see some of the unique flavor returned.

3)No general agreement and I am out of free time. I have tried to incorporate everyones ideas in a balanced manner, but I feel that for some reason that Mahtamori and I are at loggerheads. It has gotten to the point that I am beginning to feel that if I propose an idea he will reject it simply because it came from me. Seeing as this is not conducive towards moving the thread forward and due to commitments IRL, I am stepping back from the thread for a while. 15 pages ain't bad and there is a lot to ponder over contained within these pages. I will lurk for the next 8-15 pages (About the expected life expectancy for the thread)and will occasionally post something but am leaving the thread to you and Mahtamori to handle from here on.

Thunderfrog wrote:I just advise a little caution souping up the Wraithlords too much.

Giving them 4 attacks and multiple weapons NOT twin linked is putting them at or about the same level of power as a Daemon Prince for a cheaper price.

I still think the best option there is making 2 base attacks, increasing the wraithsword price to 15 points from 10, and having it confer 1 extra attack while allowing the re-roll of missed attacks in melee.

That, and anything in wraith armor should get at least a 5+ invul. (If it gives warlocks and farseers a 3/4+, it should confer a minor invul to the constructs as well. That or being undead, give them FnP.)

Don't get me wrong, I love my Wraithlords. They're my favorite models, but they shouldnt be too out of whack.

I like your ideas but would want to see the final points costing before fully agreeing or not. Please to note that that the Themed wraithlords that I proposed were:
A) Inspired by the fluff about the Iyanden Spiritseer Illayana and the giant wraith construct that accompanies her
B) From the concept of if the Eldar were moved forward in the story-line and the units we might see in an army of the dead.
C) Thrown out just to get the conversation started.

Farseer Faenyin wrote:I think you guys are missing the point that this is a discussion forum, and it doesn't matter what you 'agreed' on, as I've seen some 'agreed on' things that are pretty mental.

Keep the self-love to a minimum, at least he didn't propose specialized Wraithlords.

1)Actually this is the proposed rules forum and we can agree on things if we want.

2)Please to keep the trollish comments to a minimum. BTW, I do suggest that you take the time to read the whole thread and the posting rules on Dakka. It will keep you from coming across in a negative light. Your following comment proves my point.

Farseer Faenyin wrote:

MandalorynOranj wrote:@FocusedFire: I don't mean to sound harsh here but I've noticed you've been really inflexible on a LOT of points. For the past 3 pages or so you've been unwilling to compromise on the KP issue with the aspects, before that it was the limiting of how many squads of aspects you can take, now it's back to the Venoms ONLY being taken as squadrons. Loosen up a little, man.

You're spot on here. The OP has a lot of furvor on what he wants done and thinks that because he is the OP that he owns what other people should think. Focused, be a little more understanding to the concepts of the game, the fluff and established rules when coming up with stuff. If you want to make a stand alone game...you have the right idea. But you aren't, this is a GW game with established ideals. Work with them.

I think the only things on here that would make their way into a real world codex is parts of the proposed USR(all of the proposed changes is a little 'heavy' for a USR), and the addition of a vehicle assault capability for Banshees(though this hasn't been 'decided upon by the all powerful OP yet'.

1)It is "fervor"

2)As the OP I am allowed to set the parameters of the discussion. If you do not like the set parameters you then have the option of just not posting or to post within the set limits. Doing otherwise can be considered trollish or an attempt to de-rail the thread.

Before you get all upset, go back and read through the thread. Mahtamori has from the get go pretty much worked to hijack the thread and I have only called him on such when it opened the thread to rampant wishlisting. After our brief discussion about wishlisting he seems to have embraced the "focused" style of discussion and I will probably leave the thread in his and Gorechilds hands seeing as business(IRL) is going to demand much of my time for the next couple of months. Thats right, I will leave the thread in the hands of those that I have disagreed with. Why, Because they have been contributing fom very early on.

3)As far as understanding the concepts of the game. I again suggest that you reread the "whole" thread. I have repeatedly tried to keep the Fanboi wishlisting to within reason. The rules I have proposed have each had precedent within the 40K game. Point to one such rule that is not mindful of the 40K system or fluff. Instead of scanning through a thread and hopping on a person when they have the cohones to stand up to the group and say something is OP, maybe read through the thread and see how the conversation actually progressed. I say this because if you had read through the entire thread you would see that I have been much more flexible than the individual that I butt heads with.

Mahtamori wrote:P.P.S. I am warming to the idea of having aspect squads limited to 0-1 per FOC (and those bans lifted in Apocalypse, for instance), with the exception of the numerous Dire Avengers. After that you could have Phoenix Lords lift each respective restriction, so if you want to spam Fire Dragons you have to pick Fuegan.

Yay, we agree on something

balthydes wrote:Personally I don't like the idea of venom transports since eldar are a dying race so IMO it doesn't fit the fluff. Eldar vehicles are supposed to be tough enough to get the troops inside wherever they need to safely regardless of cost, AV10 opentopped doesn't fit. I do like sarukai's idea (the Talon) and think it would work well as a wave serpent upgrade.

Funny, The Venom has already existed as a part of the Eldar while the Talon that you like is very much a Dark Eldar unit. The proposed Talon is absolutely a DE unit and trying to put the transport into the Craftworld Eldar will only create a greater reliance upon the Fire Dragons. In essensce you would be looking at an Eldar version of the Leafblower when combined with the other ideas floating around.

balthydes wrote:I dont like the idea of combat squads since eldar try to utterly destroy their opponents before any retaliation can occur which means devastating force instead of tactically splitting up. instead what about purchasing squads of 4+exarch (0-2 per FOC slot) that can then be turned into combined squads in game but are still worth 1 KP each. Warp spiders, reapers and shining spears would be bought as 2+exarch. That way the eldar army has more KP than most and can also have lots of small squads of aspect warriors or larger squads with 2 exarchs instead of 1 sergeant (to represent the additional expertise of eldar forces).
Also- if aspect warriors become WS5 or BS5 then they would probably need to kept to smaller, expensive squads (if every shot hits then there need to be less shots fired to achieve balance).

About the squad splitting:
A)there is nothing in the rule that says you have to split the unit or that once split the units would not be able to attack the same target.
B)The Eldar are about precision, Squad splitting gives them the ability to apply exactly the right amount of firepower/manpower at the right time. Throwing 10 FD at a single Tank is IMO very un-eldarish.
C)So you want to destroy the FOC. Remember that the proposed 2 per FOC would only increase the number of transports used by the eldar and would create all sorts of problems with the proposed Phoenix Lords making their Aspect scoring rule. These ideas proposed by Mahtamori would allow the Eldar to field 10 troop units all in wave Serpents. This is why I proposed the Squad splitting. It encourages balance while the 2per FOC completely destabilizes the army.

DAaddict wrote:
Alaitoc- (*Snip)+100 cost to autarch.
Biel-tan - Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees as troops. +50 cost to the autarch.
Ulthwe - Defender unit size of 10 to 20 qualifying for 1 platform per 6. +25 cost to the autarch.
Iyaden- Wraithguard as troops and wraith lords as elites or heavies. +50 cost to the autarch.
Saim Hann - Bikes are troops and Shining Spears as elites. +50 cost to the autarch. All other craftworld bikes and shining spears are fast attack.

While I can see the merit in some ways, the Added cost to the Autarch would make these builds completely unplayable. Paying a varying points penalty just to play a differing theme would leave all of these armies crippled. There is not enough benefit to moffset the penalty. I am more in favor of each craftworld geting a bonus in the known units but suffer a penalty that is tied to overly splecializing in that theme. The +100 point to the cost of the Autarch would leave the army too short on points.

@All Posters-The existing Craftworlds are known because they are the biggest and baddest, hence they merit their own themes. Many of the posters here have complained about this not being fair to some home brewed Craftworld. My answer to this is to stop being so selfish. You really expect the rest of the army to suffer because of some theme army you want to run? Really? If you want to run a homebrewed craftworld that is fine, GW has a long tradition of "Counts as" or you can write your own home brewed rules to go with the army.
We have been discussing the GW Craftworld Eldar and what we would like to see in the future codices. My biggest night mare would be that GW "removed" what little remaining flavor the Eldar have out of the book in an effort to please those who cares the least for the Eldar backstory. What is funny is that one of the ideas I put out allowed for every concievable build or theme and it still wasn't enough. This along with being heavily criticised for simply advocating balance is when I realized that the thread was no longer a discussion but a wish thread.



Now I don't know how many people really caught the position that I was working from on the Eldar and would like to explain before handing the thread off.

1)To me the Eldar are about the pursuit of perfection through precision, grace and skill all stemming from natural ability training and organic technology. The Craftworld Eldar are a dwindling race that must conserve each and every life yet are constsntly at war. This encourages many Eldar to follow the Paths of the Warrior Aspects in hopes that the superior skill aquired will save their and other Eldar lives. However the Journey to becoming an Aspect warrior is a long one and the Craftworlds have a very limited supply of possible Aspect candidates.

2)To me, this all adds up to the Eldar being the skilled beyond all other races(High BS and WS) but low in number. Any special rules not conferred by wargear to technology should be based off of physical skills and USRs(Fleet, skilled and some aspect abilities should be unit wide. Not conveyed by Exarch) Exarchs abilities should be leadership/guiding in orientation with any possible non-USRs or AWSRs being limited in nature(Example-Crack shot should either, impose a negative modifier on cover if the whole unit can use it, or removes cover completely if only the Exarch benefts from it. Removing Cover for the whole squad would be OP).
This would also mean that Eldar would value each and every life to the point of providing even their basic guardian units with 4+ armor and training that would prevent them from being just cannon fodder.

3)Coming from a Craftworld Eldar Codex they should be from craftworlds. This means the one GW has created because trying to make them come from every tiny unknown craftworld is impossible to write and balance and you can almost always use proxies(Also Aspects have their own colours so you are only looking at vehicles and guardians being distinctive...Again, use proxies). A well written craftworld Codex will allow for at least 4-5 competitive builds and will allow for just about any homebrew theme through use of Pheonix Lords proposed FOC altering ability(Their aspect become troops).

Also, a very strong effort should be made in maintaining the distinction between Eldar and Dark Eldar.


Well Guys, Gotta go.

@Mahtamori and Gorechild, You guys have fun, I have enjoyed the discussion and if the opportunity arises I will post or send word occasionally.

Best of luck, Later

Edit for spelling and dropped sentence

Going to cut away quote-quotes to save space...

focusedfire wrote:1) If I am the only one that feels that you push for too much then it is a sign that the thread has become a fanboi wishlist, something I was trying to keep in check but was doomed when you introduced your wish-list. Need I remind you that you were the one pushing to make the codex into a Biel-Tan list with no drawbacks. You were wanting to move the aspects to the troops and the gaurdians to the Elites and Heavy Support. There are many such instances in this thread. Now this has not really bothered me because our diverging viewpoints have helped to spur the discussion and the introduction of new ideas.

2)As to keeping things simple. I have constantly stiven for such. Take what you propose as being major issues with my ideas(BTW, some of these ideas that you object to are actually your ideas reworked for balance). First, instead of being constructive you seem to automatically dismiss the idea if I propose it. Also, the problems you claim exist make no sense to me. Second, You fail to see the issues with your proposed shattering of the FOC.
Here, lets look at the ideas and their issues:

a)What you feel are issues with my idea-
Small Squads cause a suspense of Disbelief?? Tell that to the Tau or to any player yunning min sized squads.

*No need for special treatment for casualties before squad is split because it is "Before"the squad splits. This means that it is one squad until the split. To think that they would need special treatment is a failure to apply K.I.S.S.
*Squad splitting can easily be corrected with a "One time" addition to the wording,........... Or you could let people find out the results of trying to split the unit that may times. There are some cool tactical options it would open up in game. The fact that they could do it only once a turn would mean that the chances of seeing 10 independent Aspects from a single squad would be non-existant. Remember, If they are in transports then one will have to get out as soon as the split(As per current rules in the BGB)
*The KP are easily handled as per my original suggestion of having the squad able to split once and the unit always worth 2KP. No special special rule here, just your nrfusual to work with the idea.
*I believe that I already covered that the squads would split in half.(Yoou are creating a non-existant problem here.

Your proposed Dying breed is a Special Special rule and treads to heavily upon the SMs. Many of the recent proposals by you and others tresspass upon what should be other armies territories. It was because of this that I worked so hard to make the Eldar version fit the Eldar ideal of precisely applied force.

b)Now my problems with your 2 Squads per FOC idea-
*This equals 6 Elites, 6 Fa, and 6 HS
*What happens to the rule when a Phoenix lord makes the units into scoring troops?(Would need a Special Specialrule for this)
*This could mean 6 Wave serpents from the Elites section alone(Increases Dependence upon Mech
*What is to prevent an all FD in Wave Serp list?

1) A t this point it's time for you to read through the thread once more. You'll note that I've posted quite a few ideas that I'm not even serious about. You'll also note that I pushed far less for the "Biel-Tan codex" than I did for, say, psychic powers as squad upgrades. Keeping moderation to suggestions is a refinement process, and I'm willing to bet more than a few dollars that GW's own design process didn't include a humble 3-3-3-3-3 statline for Marines and then evolved upwards. You take an idea that's awesome from the pool of awesomeness, put it into context, evaluate it, refine it, or dismiss it.

2) Usually when I reject ideas that are reworks on my own is when they're put into a context I dislike or when their intent becomes something entirely different. In other words, it's when the shell is there, but the content is something entirely different. And the idea of splitting squads doesn't feel like mine own at all, not even Combat Squads.

a) There is a huge difference between a squad of 3 (when you put it on the table) of low-cost troops with small weapons (Gretchins) and a squad with high-cost troops with large weapons (Devastators). The rules for splitting squads as presented had you able to get squads of low-cost troops with small weapons (Dire Avengers, Banshees, etc) in squads of 1 - something entirely reserved for explicitly awesome or monstrous models.
Ok, thanks for the clarifications. Since the squad is able to completely refresh itself and ignore regroup restrictions should they feel like it, then +1KP is necessary regardless if they split or not.

b1) Yes (if you're taking only aspect warriors). But no more than your idea. You get, for the price of one Elite slot two squads of between 1 and 10 with a minimum of 4 total and a maximum of 9 total and exactly one exarch which is highly flexible in game and can reset unit strength.
In my case you get one or two squads of exactly 5 warriors each for one FOC. Plain and simple.
b2) That rule does not exist in context of my proposal we're discussing. Phoenix Lords would either lift the 0-1 aspect warrior choice for their aspect or have their aspect as retinue. Scoring aspect warriors is something I feel is a crutch for people who have a horrific dislike for the troop choices, and not specifically necessary or even attractive if we can make troop choices worthwhile.
b3) Yes, this means you're able to get 6 Wave Serpents from the Elite section. It doesn't mean you have to get 6 Wave Serpents from the Elite section. If this is a big problem then you either need to eliminate Wave Serpents or make the squads attractive even without the serpents, which means more delivery methods and more mobility without getting into a clown-wagon. Each of these serpents would cost more than currently and force you to have a competent, upgraded, and varied squad in it.
b4) Because you can get fewer FD squads with this proposal (max 2, unless you get Fuegan), and those squads are more expensive since they require an exarch.

focusedfire wrote:<snip>
2)As the OP I am allowed to set the parameters of the discussion. If you do not like the set parameters you then have the option of just not posting or to post within the set limits. Doing otherwise can be considered trollish or an attempt to de-rail the thread.

Before you get all upset, go back and read through the thread. Mahtamori has from the get go pretty much worked to hijack the thread and I have only called him on such when it opened the thread to rampant wishlisting. After our brief discussion about wishlisting he seems to have embraced the "focused" style of discussion and I will probably leave the thread in his and Gorechilds hands seeing as business(IRL) is going to demand much of my time for the next couple of months. Thats right, I will leave the thread in the hands of those that I have disagreed with. Why, Because they have been contributing fom very early on.

2) Ouch. I just post a lot.

focusedfire wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:P.P.S. I am warming to the idea of having aspect squads limited to 0-1 per FOC (and those bans lifted in Apocalypse, for instance), with the exception of the numerous Dire Avengers. After that you could have Phoenix Lords lift each respective restriction, so if you want to spam Fire Dragons you have to pick Fuegan.

Yay, we agree on something

Here we go. I know I've posted this before in context on the 2-for-1, but it might've been buried in walls of text.

focusedfire wrote:

balthydes wrote:Personally I don't like the idea of venom transports since eldar are a dying race so IMO it doesn't fit the fluff. Eldar vehicles are supposed to be tough enough to get the troops inside wherever they need to safely regardless of cost, AV10 opentopped doesn't fit. I do like sarukai's idea (the Talon) and think it would work well as a wave serpent upgrade.

Funny, The Venom has already existed as a part of the Eldar while the Talon that you like is very much a Dark Eldar unit. The proposed Talon is absolutely a DE unit and trying to put the transport into the Craftworld Eldar will only create a greater reliance upon the Fire Dragons. In essensce you would be looking at an Eldar version of the Leafblower when combined with the other ideas floating around.

I'm not certain a tank is very DE (I was under the impression they didn't have tanks), but Fire Dragons is the reason why open-topped or fire point Eldar vehicles with large should be discouraged. While it'd certainly fix the suicide-Dragons, it would simply mean the Dragons don't need to exit the vehicle.
Still, some units need that assault ramp, I feel.

focusedfire wrote:

DAaddict wrote:
Alaitoc- (*Snip)+100 cost to autarch.
Biel-tan - Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees as troops. +50 cost to the autarch.
Ulthwe - Defender unit size of 10 to 20 qualifying for 1 platform per 6. +25 cost to the autarch.
Iyaden- Wraithguard as troops and wraith lords as elites or heavies. +50 cost to the autarch.
Saim Hann - Bikes are troops and Shining Spears as elites. +50 cost to the autarch. All other craftworld bikes and shining spears are fast attack.

While I can see the merit in some ways, the Added cost to the Autarch would make these builds completely unplayable. Paying a varying points penalty just to play a differing theme would leave all of these armies crippled. There is not enough benefit to moffset the penalty. I am more in favor of each craftworld geting a bonus in the known units but suffer a penalty that is tied to overly splecializing in that theme. The +100 point to the cost of the Autarch would leave the army too short on points.

Could also simply leave army-specialization as an army-wide upgrade option (instead of an Autarch upgrade). I mean, you don't have to pay 50 points because your army is red-and-white, but if you want your bikes moved you have to do that.
It does provide an easy way out of the problem "how much do I need to cost the Eldar units with this set of special rules", so there is merit for thought at least.

focusedfire wrote:1)To me the Eldar are about the pursuit of perfection through precision, grace and skill all stemming from natural ability training and organic technology. The Craftworld Eldar are a dwindling race that must conserve each and every life yet are constsntly at war. This encourages many Eldar to follow the Paths of the Warrior Aspects in hopes that the superior skill aquired will save their and other Eldar lives. However the Journey to becoming an Aspect warrior is a long one and the Craftworlds have a very limited supply of possible Aspect candidates.

2)To me, this all adds up to the Eldar being the skilled beyond all other races(High BS and WS) but low in number. Any special rules not conferred by wargear to technology should be based off of physical skills and USRs(Fleet, skilled and some aspect abilities should be unit wide. Not conveyed by Exarch) Exarchs abilities should be leadership/guiding in orientation with any possible non-USRs or AWSRs being limited in nature(Example-Crack shot should either, impose a negative modifier on cover if the whole unit can use it, or removes cover completely if only the Exarch benefts from it. Removing Cover for the whole squad would be OP).
This would also mean that Eldar would value each and every life to the point of providing even their basic guardian units with 4+ armor and training that would prevent them from being just cannon fodder.

I fully agree with these sentiments, albeit with reservation for aspect warrior numbers (which I consider are best left to be dictated by gameplay).

focusedfire wrote:3)Coming from a Craftworld Eldar Codex they should be from craftworlds. This means the one GW has created because trying to make them come from every tiny unknown craftworld is impossible to write and balance and you can almost always use proxies(Also Aspects have their own colours so you are only looking at vehicles and guardians being distinctive...Again, use proxies). A well written craftworld Codex will allow for at least 4-5 competitive builds and will allow for just about any homebrew theme through use of Pheonix Lords proposed FOC altering ability(Their aspect become troops).

Also, a very strong effort should be made in maintaining the distinction between Eldar and Dark Eldar.

The fourth edition codex is saying good bye to the Craftworld addon, which may not be a bad thing since that particular addon did some weird stuff to some of the craftworlds as a sort of half-assed Astarte codex. Incomplete. The Aspects no longer being pushed as hard towards aspect colours was really surprising for me when I want from 3rd to 4th edition codex.
Regardless, I think the only thing I can currently complain about with regards to craftworld representation in the current codex is that it's taken a step away from Eldar's presented specialization. The current presentation is a bit bland, but that can in equal parts be because of power creep. A sqaud of Banshees isn't as terrible to MEQ now that Marines are approaching dime-a-dossin, and a Squad of Scorpions doesn't present the same deterrent since it's all done in transports these days.

focusedfire wrote:Well Guys, Gotta go.

@Mahtamori and Gorechild, You guys have fun, I have enjoyed the discussion and if the opportunity arises I will post or send word occasionally.

Best of luck, Later

Take care!

Mahtamori wrote:

focusedfire wrote:*No need for special treatment for casualties before squad is split because it is "Before"the squad splits. This means that it is one squad until the split. To think that they would need special treatment is a failure to apply K.I.S.S. (Sentence returned from earlier edit)In other words the unit must abide by all of the restictions of being a single unit untill it splits because there is nothing saying otherwise.

Ok, thanks for the clarifications. Since the squad is able to completely refresh itself and ignore regroup restrictions should they feel like it, then +1KP is necessary regardless if they split or not.

Before I am outta here, I want to correct this. I am saying the opposite of what you are inferring and have added a sentence that I had dropped for clarification.

What I was saying is that the unit is one unit until is splits. This means that it must follow the restrictions set forth within the BGB. If they are out of cohesion then they must move back into cohesion before taking any other actions(As per the BGB) Now, if you are talking about the squad being broken and falling back.....by the rules as proposed and as written you could still split but the seperate squads would still have to roll to regroup. If you feel this needs a sentence indicating such or specifying that the unit may not split while broke, then that is no big deal.

Gotta go, will post the occasional idea if I have time.

Best Wishes, FF

focusedfire wrote:

balthydes wrote:Personally I don't like the idea of venom transports since eldar are a dying race so IMO it doesn't fit the fluff. Eldar vehicles are supposed to be tough enough to get the troops inside wherever they need to safely regardless of cost, AV10 opentopped doesn't fit. I do like sarukai's idea (the Talon) and think it would work well as a wave serpent upgrade.

Funny, The Venom has already existed as a part of the Eldar while the Talon that you like is very much a Dark Eldar unit. The proposed Talon is absolutely a DE unit and trying to put the transport into the Craftworld Eldar will only create a greater reliance upon the Fire Dragons. In essensce you would be looking at an Eldar version of the Leafblower when combined with the other ideas floating around.

I was under the impression that the venom was originally a harlequin tank and not craftworld or dark eldar at all. My view on the fluff (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that dark eldar pirates favor speed and being able to assault over everything else (which is why raiders are AV 10/10/10 opentopped) while craftworld eldar armies favor speed first and durability second (so wave serpents are AV 12/12/10 with energy fields). Any vehicle that allows craftworld eldar to assault while it is moving will blur the line between the two. Therefore the trick is to add a vehicle to the codex that is as different from dark eldar vehicles as possible while still allowing assaults.
Here's my thought process for an eldar assault vehicle: since I don't want to sacrifice speed or make a craftworld raider (sacrificing durability) or stormraven (having speed, durability, firepower, transport capacity and assault capability) the assault vehicle has to sacrifice either transport capacity (which limits its use as an assault vehicle) or firepower. Therefore the talon: a fast, skimmer tank with AV 12/12/10, only an underslung weapon and the ability to become opentopped for a turn fits the requirements reasonably well while maintaining fluff.

Mahtamori wrote:I'm not certain a tank is very DE (I was under the impression they didn't have tanks), but Fire Dragons is the reason why open-topped or fire point Eldar vehicles with large should be discouraged. While it'd certainly fix the suicide-Dragons, it would simply mean the Dragons don't need to exit the vehicle.
Still, some units need that assault ramp, I feel.

Here's two options that could balance fire dragons serpents:
1) I think this can be balanced by saying that the energy field can only be deactivated if the tank moves less than 6". CC squads could still move 6" forward, pivot, disembark 2", move 6", run and then assault for a relatively large threat range. The Fire Dragons would have to start within 12" to be within melta range and therefore have to have already been close to enemy lines for a turn. Remember also that fire dragon squads are going to be more expensive (exarch is mandatory) and their now opentopped vehicle will probably be very close to an enemy deathstar (if they blew up a land raider) that hits their tank on 4s in an assault. I would still be afraid of Dire Avengers bladestorming from inside the tank though.
2) Another option would be to say that at the start of the assault phase the tank disengages its energy field, allowing the eldar inside to assault a unit within 6" of the door. The tank then counts as opentopped until the start of the next eldar turn. That way anything can assault out of it but if they do they can't shoot and the tank has be within retaliation range. IMO that would make taking foot troops more attractive as well.
There are of course more ways to balance the talon and I'm open to suggestions.

After scanning through some of the pages of this topic, here are some ideas I like the sound of along with a few of my own:
- Aspect Warriors having certain WS/BS linked to what the specialise in doing (for example Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees WS5 BS3; Dire Avengers and Warp Spiders WS4 BS4; Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers WS3 BS5) and the Exarchs would have +1 WS, BS, W, I and A than their normal Aspect Warrior would have.
- Energy Fields and Holo-Fields automatically giving a 5+ cover save
- Star Engines can be used either in the Movement Phase, granting an extra 12" move in lieu of Shooting in the next Shooting Phase or make 1 Offensive Weapon Defensive for the Shooting Phase
- Vectored Engines allowing another turn up to 180 degrees in the Assault Phase
- Guardians 6p/m
- Shuriken Catapults with 18" Range and Avenger Shuriken Catapults with 24" Range
- More special character Pskyers and Psychic Powers
- Pheonix Lords all with 4+ Invulnerable Saves (Asurmen's Battle Fate allowing for re-rolling failed Invulnerable Saves
- Eldrad with Eternal Warrior
- Falcons autmatically count 1 Offensive Weapon per turn as Defensive
- Avatar with better stats
- All heavy weapon options except for Shuriken Cannon costing 5 points less
- Vypers not Open-Topped
- Allow Fire Prisms to be in Sqaudrons of 1-3 but only allowed to link Prism Cannons within the Sqaudron
- Howling Banshees can assault out of Transports
- Make Wave Serpents Assault Vehicles

Now onto the mentioned Craftworld rules. I don't like this idea in the sense that anyone wishing to create their own custom Craftworld may not end up eith a rule set for their Craftworld but would have to use one of the main Craftworlds rules such as Saim-Hann allowing more Jetbikes and less pressure on Fast Attack choices. Also, Eldar could end up like Space Marines and have so many different rules they can become different armies altogether.
I like this idea, however, in that it allows for that different aspect of Eldar tournament lists and new things can be tried out.
Overall then, I'm a little indifferent on my opinion of the idea.
Thoughts?

@ reidy1113: It's not like I actually have a lot of input, but here it is

Aspect Warrior WS and BS: That melee aspects should get +1 WS is something I think many would agree on, but whether they'd get -1 BS is perhaps not going to find as much agreement. Where'd you pit Shining Spears and Swooping Hawks?
Cover Saves for tanks: I'm a bit uncertain about this one. I'd rather have the Eldar vehicles move at combat speed, personally.
Star Engines: Yes, it does make more sense to stick this one in the movement phase. I'd simply write it down like "The vehicle may move up to 12" extra when moving at cruising speed". I don't think it is a good place to place the "one extra normal weapon" upgrade in, since this would make the upgrade too powerful and too pricey.
Vectored Engines: Agreed, I'd say either this or have the vehicle ignore terrain tests from difficult terrain. Or at least re-roll them.
Guardians: Personally I'd never agree with anything that makes Guardians even more into meat-shield troops.
Catapults +6": I think this is a good idea in general, although there are several good ideas regarding these and "have it like they are now" is possibly the only bad one.
Psychers: Agreed. More options would be nice. (Preferably not more into Farseer, but more OTHER options, yes?)
Phoenix Lords: Some of them may need a bit more work, but 4++ is necessary for them, yes! Baharroth, especially, but maybe Jain Zar and one or two others as well.
Falcons 1 normal is defensive: That's perhaps a more clear way of putting it. "May fire an additional weapon" makes some people think you're allowed to shoot a weapon at cruising speed.
Heavy weapons cost reduce: There's additional work needed here. Some options have proven to be rather effective for their cost, I'd say that in order of cost-efficiency; Scatter, Shuri, EML, Bright, Star. In other words, I think the Star Cannon could use more than just -5 points and that Scatter may not need it.
Fire Prisms: I think these are the vehicles in least need of being in Squadrons - I'd easily spend 1000 points for 9 prisms in any list that's 1750 points or higher and not think of any other options. This honour could go to Falcons and/or Wraithlords instead.

@ Balthys: I know what you're trying to accomplish, but it's not as smooth as it could be. It could have a stronger shield than an energy field that simply doesn't allow shots above say S4 to be fired through the field from the inside. It could be that when it powers down the field it will be treated as being immobilized until the end of the next owning player's assault phase (although it does provide a safe landing and an immobilized result will make the state permanent).
I still think the easiest way is making the Serpent an assault vehicle like the reidy suggests.