This topic is to cover a few changes that will happen to the Eldar with the new 'leaked' codex.

* Banshees just got powerful with a 5+ invuln in assault.

* Multi-targeting on tanks has increased the value of underslung cannons. Now being able to shoot at a different target gives some flexability

* Starcannons got a bump to STR 7, making them more like autocannons with an AP2. This is worth taking a second look at.

* All armies got a lot faster. This has made the speed of mech'dar less of an advantage.

* Foor'dar now have a base move of 8" with fleet. This means foot'dar are much faster than they used to be.

* Storm guardians can now use shuriken pistols in assault -- giving them the option of having a single STR 4 AP 5 attack.

* Cheap extra armor is an advantage.

* Squadren rules make war walkers and vypers a bit tougher. A squad of vypers is harder to kill at range, as they no longer give +1 to the damage table.

* Warlocks are now --much-- tougher to kill, with an built in fortune. That's a 75% of an invluln save, which is better than a 3+ save. Even with a STR 7, this makes them tougher than many other troops in assault.

* As multiple stunned results increase the chances of vehicle destruction, multiple scatter laser shots have a better chance of destroying vehicles. This lowers the need for dragons.

* Eldar jetbikes now have a ton of special rules. I have yet to see if this makes them viable.

Overall, it looks like the eldar got a boost with this 'codex'. Foot'dar armies have increased in strength. Dragons are no longer an auto-take, as 10 banshees can wreck face. Warlocks are still good at destroying vehicles, and 10 of them can bog down nearly any unit in the game.

labmouse42 wrote:

* Banshees just got a lot more powerful. STR 5 attacks with a 5+ invuln in assault. These are on par with death cult assassins now. How good is the executioner now?


* Guardians are now STR 5 in assault. Assault weapons count as an extra CC in the first round of assault. This toughens up guardians a bit.

Where are you gettting this exactly?

Also, can you edit the title to say "Leaked rulebook" as it appears now that you're reporting on a leaked Eldar Codex.

Nice summary so far.

How about fast moving skimmers? Do they get a cover save when going flat out? It seems that fortuning a skimmer going flat out is no longer possible.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Where are you gettting this exactly?

Also, can you edit the title to say "Leaked rulebook" as it appears now that you're reporting on a leaked Eldar Codex.

p93 of the 'leaked' rules. Power weapons are listed as STR 5.
All models have close combat weapons (on the same page). Note how they have a STR 5.

Overall, I think its makes assault armies with lots of bodies tougher.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wuestenfux wrote:Nice summary so far.

How about fast moving skimmers? Do they get a cover save when going flat out? It seems that fortuning a skimmer going flat out is no longer possible.

I don't see anything about obscured for moving flat out. I did find something handy though... You can drop your dragons out while moving flat out.

If the transport has moved flat out or at cruise speed, passengers can still disembark, but they must do so as follows. Nominate any point over which the transport moved over and deploy the squad as if it were deep striking onto that point. If the unit scatters, every model must immediately take a dangerous terrain test. Models with the airborne or jump rule can make a more controlled descent - not only do they not take dangerous terrain test (unless they do land in dangerous terrain), they can use special rules that affect the ability to deep strike and even disembark at supersonic speed. Models that disembark by using this special rule can act in this turn as if they have arrived from reserve via deep strike but are not subject to Defensive Fire. They cannot perform Assault actions, whether the vehicle is an assault vehicle or not.

Pg 93 says those weapons are Strength "S" which is the strength of the user not "5". Did you really thing a guardsman was going to get S5 for having a las rifle with a butt on it?

Also, you cannot disembark after Flat Out.

Pg 123:

• If the transporting model has conducted any
other Move action, the transported unit cannot
disembark.

Flat Out is a type of move action that is excluded.

You are correct on the STR. I mis-read that (damn that font)

On the other hand, read the snippet I posted about moving flat out. It specifically says you can disembark that way going flat out.
Unexpectedly, there are conflicts in this rough draft of the 'leaked codex'

Your quoted text is for the special rule Rapid Insertion only.

Personally, I think it's too early to think about the potential changes in store for the Eldar, considering how far off 6th Ed. is and the questionable accuracy of the leak...

... However, on-topic, the boost to snipers should also help Rangers; good for parking on objectives.

I see. As serpents will not have that rule, they cannot rapid insert.

labmouse42 wrote:I see. As serpents will not have that rule, they cannot rapid insert.

Bingo.

enhanced wraithtuard arent' to shabby either 3 s6 ws 5 hits at I5 on the charge

How do they have 3 attacks?

+1 charging and +1 for assault weapon in first round of combat unless I miss my guess and am confused .

You're missing this part:

assault weapons (and weapons
that have at least one fire mode with the assault
type) can be used as a secondary close combat
weapon in the turn a model assaults. Note that
the model needs a one-handed primary close
combat weapon to claim the attack bonus. If the
model has no designated close combat weapon
and attacks with its basic attacks, it cannot use an
assault weapon to get +1 attack.

Wraithguard do not have another CCW so get no bonus. Also, they are S5 not 6.

aw man damn thanks for the correct I thoughti t was to good to true. this is what happens when I try to come up with good ideas at work.

labmouse42 wrote:
* Multi-targeting on tanks has increased the value of underslung cannons. Now being able to shoot at a different target gives some flexability

They'll have to move 6 inches or fewer to divide fire.

labmouse42 wrote:
* Assault weapons count as an extra CC in the first round of assault. This toughens up guardians a bit.

As stated, this only matters to guys who already have CC weapons, which will benefit only Warp Spider Exarchs with Power Blades or Swooping Hawk Exarchs with power weapons. Although, would a Warlock with a Singing Spear get 3 attacks on a charge? He has an assault weapon (the spear), and a CC weapon (the spear).

labmouse42 wrote:
* Cheap extra armor is an advantage.

Eldar don't have Extra Armor.

labmouse42 wrote:
* Squadren rules make war walkers and vypers a bit tougher. A squad of vypers is harder to kill at range, as they no longer give +1 to the damage table.

Meh, 3+ save with 3 or lose the entire squad to one damage result. That's not better, that's just different.

labmouse42 wrote:
* Warlocks are now --much-- tougher to kill, with an built in fortune. That's a 75% of an invluln save, which is better than a 3+ save. Even with a STR 7, this makes them tougher than many other troops in assault.

They only have about a 60% chance of using this ability.

labmouse42 wrote:
* As multiple shaken results increase the chances of vehicle destruction, multiple scatter laser shots have a better chance of destroying vehicles. This lowers the need for dragons.

Shaken doesn't increase. If you Shake a vehicle 5 times, it's still Shaken. Got to be Stunned or better to advance. Glancing hits against a Tank are -3, so it's more difficult for scatter lasers to kill tanks.

labmouse42 wrote:
* Eldar jetbikes now have a ton of special rules. I have yet to see if this makes them viable.

They get less out of being bikes than say, Marines, because they don't carry any extra weapons. If Shining Spears weren't so expensive, they'd come out ok.

labmouse42 wrote:
10 banshees can wreck face.

They don't kill things any better than they used to. Their only difference is having an invulnerable save in assault. It never took power weapons to kill them before, so the only change is they can fight other powered up assault troops slightly better. This will still not be enough.

In addition, Fortune only lasts until the end of your turn, so it's all but useless.

Vibro cannons may actually kill things.

Ranger Long Rifles are super death machines and Pathfinders may actually be useful. Although, Rangers/Pathfinders can never benefit from Infiltrating now, as they'd be unable to shoot on the first turn. But realistically, they're the only Troops choice in the codex worth holding an objective, since you have to hold objectives, not take them at the end.

You guys are missing the most obvious one: pathfinders. They still have great cover saves, and will still be hard to root out, even with the stationary penalty.

Take 3 or 4 small units of these guys, and there won't be a hidden weapon, hidden upgrade, or squad leader left in your opponent's force by turn 4. Given how much they rend, you're also going to be able to take down mixed units without too many problems (shooting the broadsides around the shield drones, for example).

Also, bladestorm just got much better, being virtually garanteed to get a directed hit, which means that commissars and bosspoles will both go away in a hurry, leaving very vulnerable squads.

Ailaros wrote:
Also, bladestorm just got much better, being virtually garanteed to get a directed hit, which means that commissars and bosspoles will both go away in a hurry, leaving very vulnerable squads.

What makes them get Directed attacks? Must have missed that.

DarknessEternal wrote:Eldar don't have Extra Armor..

And the nit-pick award of the day goes to.......
Look up spirit stones. I used the wording for extra armor in its place to make it easier for the majority of readers to understand.

You have some other valid points though. and there are a few comments I want to make on them.
* Glancing hits are -3 vs tanks,but non-glancing are still only -1. The point is you can still stun them to death, where before you did not have that option.
* Few units can destory 3 AV 10 vehicles at range -- with the noteable exception being the GK dread. I expect the popularity of those dreads to decrease with 6th. I stand by AV 10 squads being more valueable than before.
* Warlocks have a much greater chance that 60% if they have embolden. Its closer to a 88%

In order to use one of his powers the psyker must make a Morale check (psychic) or Psychic test. p108
Embolden : The Warlock and his squad may re-roll any failed Morale check. p31 of Codex Update

In addition, Fortune only lasts until the end of your turn, so it's all but useless.

I really struggled understanding the fortune update. Could you explain your reasoning?

As Ailaros says, pathfinders are brutal with these rules.

Another great unit is the holofield+spirit stones prism - virtually unkillable and will be able to continue blasting stuff very accurately through the entire game. Vypers are much better, remember that you can easily get tank hunters on them with stratagem points too.

Basing a list on prisms and pathfinders is probably a good start with these rules.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:What makes them get Directed attacks? Must have missed that.

With "covering fire" all you have to do is roll three 6's to hit, and you can take any hit from the batch and throw it on whatever model you want. It should be easy enough for avengers to get it without bladestorm, much less with.

Also note that ICs get directed hit for free, which means Yriel is now an unbeatable god in close combat as far as horde armies are concerned. Either you don't get your power weapons close enough to hit (in which case, you're not hurting him), or you're getting them close enough, and they're getting picked straight out of close combat at a higher initiative than you get to swing. Actually, it's not just hordes - it's any unit that relies on hidden weapons to get their job done.

Illumini wrote:Another great unit is the holofield+spirit stones prism - virtually unkillable

The same applies to falcons. Holofields + stones mean an extremely tough to kill unit with that extra -1 on the dice roll vs tanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:Also note that ICs get directed hit for free, which means Yriel is now an unbeatable god in close combat as far as horde armies are concerned.

Ummm....hes T3 with a 3+ save.

Sadly, Uriel will die to 30 orks pretty quickly, even if he can pluck off their power fist. (assuming the ork nob is not wearing 'eavy armor and immune to directed attacks)

Ailaros wrote:You guys are missing the most obvious one: pathfinders.

I didn't.

DarknessEternal wrote:Ranger Long Rifles are super death machines and Pathfinders may actually be useful.

Ailaros wrote:
Also, bladestorm just got much better, being virtually garanteed to get a directed hit, which means that commissars and bosspoles will both go away in a hurry, leaving very vulnerable squads.

Bosspoles will be totally safe. All Nobz can buy 'Eavy Armor, which will make them a different armor group, which will make them unlikely to be in the armor group from which you can pick your casualties on directed hits.

Illumini wrote:I really struggled understanding the fortune update. Could you explain your reasoning?

If you cast Fortune on your own unit, Fortune ends at the end of your current turn.

labmouse42 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Also note that ICs get directed hit for free, which means Yriel is now an unbeatable god in close combat as far as horde armies are concerned.

Ummm....hes T3 with a 3+ save.

Sadly, Uriel will die to 30 orks pretty quickly, even if he can pluck off their power fist. (assuming the ork nob is not wearing 'eavy armor and immune to directed attacks)

Well, the first group of 30 orks is getting annihilated by the Eye of Wrath. How many groups of 30k Orks does he need to be able to walk away from for 155 points?

On a related topic, power fists will once again be phased out of the meta. They'll never get to swing.

DarknessEternal wrote:If you cast Fortune on your own unit, Fortune ends at the end of your current turn.

Forgive me, I haven't had a chance to look through the PDF due to exams but say you had two Farseers who cast fortune on each others unit, does it then last until the start of your next turn?

Iranna.

Don't get too hung up on sniper rifles. If the rules for them stay as they are in the final version they'll be house ruled out.

Joey wrote:Don't get too hung up on sniper rifles. If the rules for them stay as they are in the final version they'll be house ruled out.

Because they are finally a good terror weapon? The only sniper unit that is really good with these rules are pathfinders. All others are simply competitive. Snipers are heavy weapons, so you are looking at EV2, getting hit on 2+ by most other units. Most sniper units have possibility to get +1 to coversave, leaving them with a 4+ coversave. Scouts can go in a reinforced ruin for a 3+, but they only have BS3. Ratlings are T2 and low leadership. Pathfinders are great, but they are expensive, and very vulnerable to assaults. What other sniper units are out there?

These rules for snipers is what snipers should have been all the time. Snipers have been useless forever, let's finally get them into the game with a real role (and not in the silly SUPER-AWESOME-VINDICARE-DEATHRAY way)

Yes, Eldar and a lot of other armies really do well under the leaked rule set. Just printed it out and going through it.

Illumini wrote:

Joey wrote:Don't get too hung up on sniper rifles. If the rules for them stay as they are in the final version they'll be house ruled out.

Because they are finally a good terror weapon? The only sniper unit that is really good with these rules are pathfinders. All others are simply competitive. Snipers are heavy weapons, so you are looking at EV2, getting hit on 2+ by most other units. Most sniper units have possibility to get +1 to coversave, leaving them with a 4+ coversave. Scouts can go in a reinforced ruin for a 3+, but they only have BS3. Ratlings are T2 and low leadership. Pathfinders are great, but they are expensive, and very vulnerable to assaults. What other sniper units are out there?

Pathfinders have stealth(2), giving them a 3+ cover save against everything, and their rifles wound on 2+. They would absolutely destroy any foot army. The only time I would play against an eldar opponant with pathfinders would be if I myself only used vets with snipers.

Iranna wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:If you cast Fortune on your own unit, Fortune ends at the end of your current turn.

Forgive me, I haven't had a chance to look through the PDF due to exams but say you had two Farseers who cast fortune on each others unit, does it then last until the start of your next turn?

Iranna.

No. It says until the end of the current turn. Fortune can only be cast at the beginning of your own turn.

Also, RE: Sniperhammer: It's not snipers or even Pathfinders that are the problem, it's Directed Hits. That's what can't be allowed anywhere in its current form.

Joey wrote:

Illumini wrote:

Joey wrote:Don't get too hung up on sniper rifles. If the rules for them stay as they are in the final version they'll be house ruled out.

Because they are finally a good terror weapon? The only sniper unit that is really good with these rules are pathfinders. All others are simply competitive. Snipers are heavy weapons, so you are looking at EV2, getting hit on 2+ by most other units. Most sniper units have possibility to get +1 to coversave, leaving them with a 4+ coversave. Scouts can go in a reinforced ruin for a 3+, but they only have BS3. Ratlings are T2 and low leadership. Pathfinders are great, but they are expensive, and very vulnerable to assaults. What other sniper units are out there?

Pathfinders have stealth(2), giving them a 3+ cover save against everything, and their rifles wound on 2+. They would absolutely destroy any foot army. The only time I would play against an eldar opponant with pathfinders would be if I myself only used vets with snipers.

Yes, pathfinders would be a great unit. However, they are around 26pts per model. A unit of 10 = 260 pts. That is two vendettas or 3 hydras + 1 chimera.... The unit is not THAT resilient to shooting, as they are hit on 2+ by most things, they are only T3, and 3+ is hardly invincible. They also fold to anything in combat.

Vets with snipers will still be inferior to vets with meltas or vets with plasma. The sniper will simply move up to being a usable weapon.

Snipers should have directed hits - it is what snipers do - pick out officers, machine gunners etc.

Illumini wrote:

Joey wrote:

Illumini wrote:

Joey wrote:Don't get too hung up on sniper rifles. If the rules for them stay as they are in the final version they'll be house ruled out.

Because they are finally a good terror weapon? The only sniper unit that is really good with these rules are pathfinders. All others are simply competitive. Snipers are heavy weapons, so you are looking at EV2, getting hit on 2+ by most other units. Most sniper units have possibility to get +1 to coversave, leaving them with a 4+ coversave. Scouts can go in a reinforced ruin for a 3+, but they only have BS3. Ratlings are T2 and low leadership. Pathfinders are great, but they are expensive, and very vulnerable to assaults. What other sniper units are out there?

Pathfinders have stealth(2), giving them a 3+ cover save against everything, and their rifles wound on 2+. They would absolutely destroy any foot army. The only time I would play against an eldar opponant with pathfinders would be if I myself only used vets with snipers.

Yes, pathfinders would be a great unit. However, they are around 26pts per model. A unit of 10 = 260 pts. That is two vendettas or 3 hydras + 1 chimera.... The unit is not THAT resilient to shooting, as they are hit on 2+ by most things, they are only T3, and 3+ is hardly invincible. They also fold to anything in combat.

Vets with snipers will still be inferior to vets with meltas or vets with plasma. The sniper will simply move up to being a usable weapon.

Snipers should have directed hits - it is what snipers do - pick out officers, machine gunners etc.

No they're just over-powered. It shouldn't be possible to just wipe out enemy leaders/special weapons at will.
I shoot at snipers and they lose a couple of models. They shoot at me and I lose a couple of models, go to ground/flee, and have a reletively expensive unit rendered almost useless in a single turn.

Eldar will get nerfed a bit with the new ruleset.

Mech Eldar will not be quite as good as it is now since fast skimmer swill get nerfed (no more 4+ cover save if going flat out).
No fortuning (or casting in general) when moving flat out.
The squadron rule changes so that Warwalkers will need stones to survive longer.
Witch blades will be nerfed due to S 7 and AP -. So it will be harder to take down armor and AV 14 tanks cannot be touched.
CC is not where Eldar excels and this will also hold in the new ed even if Banshees seem to get a boost. But Banshees generally die quickly when the enemy has a chance to hit back.

Illumini wrote:
Snipers should have directed hits - it is what snipers do - pick out officers, machine gunners etc.

It is what snipers do in the real world, but this is a game so the rules should be more balance-friendly then reality-friendly. If you grant snipers "directed hits" then all the units that hide their special weapons/leaders will be useless. Like Ailaros said, think of IG blobs and commissars/meltas/sergeants sniping. That unit would be absolutely useless with direct fire so easily available. Same with all the units which hides special weapons and are on foot.

Nowaday most of the armies are mech-based, because it is the best choice. This rule makes them even better. Do you really want to sit at the game table and see nothing than vehicles?

Yeah, I imagine that directed hits will not survive in its current form. Either directed hits are gamebreaking good, neutering the many squads GW has with only 1-2 special models, or the unit is shielded or otherwise not vulnerable to directed hits, making directed hits useless. So either amazing or useless in the current iteration of directed hits, which is just bad design.

Lothar wrote:

Illumini wrote:
Snipers should have directed hits - it is what snipers do - pick out officers, machine gunners etc.

It is what snipers do in the real world, but this is a game so the rules should be more balance-friendly then reality-friendly. If you grant snipers "directed hits" then all the units that hide their special weapons/leaders will be useless. Like Ailaros said, think of IG blobs and commissars/meltas/sergeants sniping. That unit would be absolutely useless with direct fire so easily available. Same with all the units which hides special weapons and are on foot.

Nowaday most of the armies are mech-based, because it is the best choice. This rule makes them even better. Do you really want to sit at the game table and see nothing than vehicles?

There is a lot in these rules that makes mech-spam much less viable. Some stuff makes it better again, like protection from directed hits.

Note that you can also protect yourself against directed hits by having another unit between the shooter and the target, or by taking "shielded" stratagem.

Also note that there aren't really that many snipers around. Deathmarks, pathfinders/rangers, ratlings, various IG squads, scouts... The good ones amongst these units cost a lot of pts. I'm not totally up to date on the deathmark rules, so won't comment on their usability, but all of these units loose their biggest perk if there is an intervening unit between them and their target, or if the target has a transport.

Pretty much everything having directed hits in close combat is a bigger threat to powerfists etc than snipers.

DarknessEternal wrote:
On a related topic, power fists will once again be phased out of the meta. They'll never get to swing.

I don't think that's necessarily true. They will still be a strong anti Dred contingency, they just won't be able to bitch pwn 1000 year old super bad asses any more, which in the current game is just stupid ridiculous. I mean, the Heresy would have been a short lived affair if the emperor would have just thought to sent an assault squad with a PF wielding vet at Horus from the get go .

Well, I figured (not being the first one) that Falcons are more surivable than now.
The malus of -1 being a tank paired with a holofield causes a destroyed result only on a double 6.
Moreover, vectored engines treat each immobillized result as shaken, and stones cause stunned results as shaken as long as there is no hull breach.
In this way, hull breaches can only be caused by several weapon-destroyed results.
Not a bad deal.

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I figured (not being the first one) that Falcons are more surivable than now.
The malus of -1 being a tank paired with a holofield causes a destroyed result only on a double 6.
Moreover, vectored engines treat each immobillized result as shaken, and stones cause stunned results as shaken as long as there is no hull breach.
In this way, hull breaches can only be caused by several weapon-destroyed results.
Not a bad deal.

Do you think that they will let stones and engines effect the same hit?

If so, that makes the falcon near-unkillable. A penetrating hit has only a %2.77 chance of destruction.
You can use 3 of those puppies without any fear of destruction for contesting/controlling purposes..

labmouse42 wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, I figured (not being the first one) that Falcons are more surivable than now.
The malus of -1 being a tank paired with a holofield causes a destroyed result only on a double 6.
Moreover, vectored engines treat each immobillized result as shaken, and stones cause stunned results as shaken as long as there is no hull breach.
In this way, hull breaches can only be caused by several weapon-destroyed results.
Not a bad deal.

Do you think that they will let stones and engines effect the same hit?

No need to do so. As said, an immobilze result is treated as shaken with vectored engines and a stun result is treated as shaken if there is hull breach already.

Fire Prisms would also get a boost thanks to the new scatter rules. The (large or small) blast scatters 2'' or 4'' if the roll to hit with BS 4 fails.

On the other hand, holding objectives with Eldar infantry is still an issue unless you consider Wraithguard.
Pathfinders gain a 3+ cover save if deployed in cover. But there are some concerns: 1) Fast moving units able to assault them quickly. 2) Deep striking units targeting them. 3) Cover-save ignoring weapons like thunder cannon, whirlwind barrage. 4) Misc. units able to cause a mess like scouting Hellhounds.

Vectored engines only work on the first immobilized result, not on each

Illumini wrote:Vectored engines only work on the first immobilized result, not on each

Thanks for clarifying:

Page 44 - Vectored Engines:
When a vehicle with vectored engines suffers its first
‘Damaged - Immobilised’ result on the Vehicle
Damage table, it is treated as ‘Crew - Shaken’ instead.

To get a immobilsed result, the opponent needs to roll 5,5 or 5,6 or 6,5, while a 6,6 causes a destroyed result.
That's not very likely on average.

No doubt, god-falcons are back. God-Prisms and God-Spinner are both better though. DAVU is not an option anymore, so why would you ever take a falcon?

I actually broke all this stuff down here http://www.3forint.com/2012/01/6th-edition-eldar-codex-update.html
Eldar are going to be awesome with the current codex if the leaked rulebook is true. I can't wait!

Illumini wrote:No doubt, god-falcons are back. God-Prisms and God-Spinner are both better though. DAVU is not an option anymore, so why would you ever take a falcon?

Well, Prisms and Spinners are bad as ever when the face a weapon-destroyed result.

Falcons can bring Fire Dragons or Harlies into positions. Fire Dragons will still be needed to take on heavy tanks since witchblades good nerfed.

No they are not. They have MT(2), so you need 3 weapon destroyed to silence them. They are more awesome than ever.

Dok wrote:I actually broke all this stuff down here http://www.3forint.com/2012/01/6th-edition-eldar-codex-update.html
Eldar are going to be awesome with the current codex if the leaked rulebook is true. I can't wait!

Nice summary. By the way, you need to consider the above remark about vectored engines.

Not sure if Eldar is back as a top tier army. I'd say, no! Eldar infantry is too fragile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Illumini wrote:No they are not. They have MT(2), so you need 3 weapon destroyed to silence them. They are more awesome than ever.

That's good to hear.

wuestenfux wrote:

Illumini wrote:Vectored engines only work on the first immobilized result, not on each

Thanks for clarifying:

Page 44 - Vectored Engines:
When a vehicle with vectored engines suffers its first
‘Damaged - Immobilised’ result on the Vehicle
Damage table, it is treated as ‘Crew - Shaken’ instead.

To get a immobilsed result, the opponent needs to roll 5,5 or 5,6 or 6,5, while a 6,6 causes a destroyed result.
That's not very likely on average.

@wuestenfux you mean the above? I know, that's an amazing buff for all eldar tanks. I really think, that with the speed and survivability that they will have, that they will be close to top tier again.
The troop choices are still a bit lacking, but you should be able to get most of your army in their face early game. Thus giving your pathfinders turns to score vps.

Given the speed increase of fleet infantry, all footdar armies are also quite viable.

I wonder what 20 harlequins, 20 warlocks, 20 pathfinders could do.
You would need 2 seers for your HQ to boost your harlequins.

All that comes out to a bit less than 1750 points. It would be a hard force to stop before it ripped apart tanks and infantry.

labmouse42 wrote:Given the speed increase of fleet infantry, all footdar armies are also quite viable.

I wonder what 20 harlequins, 20 warlocks, 20 pathfinders could do.
You would need 2 seers for your HQ to boost your harlequins.

All that comes out to a bit less than 1750 points. It would be a hard force to stop before it ripped apart tanks and infantry.

Well, I could play this kind of army. First, I thought about trading my Pathfinders (played as an Alaitoc force) but now I'll keep them.
It appears that Harlies and Warlocks can move and fleet 16'' which would bring them in close proximity to the enemy. The enemy will have one round of shooting but this can be tough.

I play a heavy jetbike force and I was wondering what are peoples opinions on the new Eldar jetbike rules.

To me things seem fairly similar except for reference to Draw Back which I'm not 100% clear on. I'm also wondering if the increased mobility of assaulting infantry makes jetbike lists less viable as the speed differential they enjoyed has been lessened.

Also if Farseers have been nerfed I was wondering how viable a cheap Autarch has become? I know I always used my Farseer to fortune the cover save on my suicide Fire Dragons, with that option gone a Farseer becomes less mandatory in mech lists as most of your shots are already twin linked or Str6 +. I've also heard talk of mow powerful reserves can be so maybe this is leveling the playing field in the HQ section a little. Or at least making you HQ choice dependent on your army rather than always a Farseer.

Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Lothar wrote:

Illumini wrote:
Snipers should have directed hits - it is what snipers do - pick out officers, machine gunners etc.

It is what snipers do in the real world, but this is a game so the rules should be more balance-friendly then reality-friendly. If you grant snipers "directed hits" then all the units that hide their special weapons/leaders will be useless. Like Ailaros said, think of IG blobs and commissars/meltas/sergeants sniping. That unit would be absolutely useless with direct fire so easily available. Same with all the units which hides special weapons and are on foot.

Nowaday most of the armies are mech-based, because it is the best choice. This rule makes them even better. Do you really want to sit at the game table and see nothing than vehicles?

Because there isn't any way of blocking direct hits...oh wait. There's the basic Ork tactic called "Intervening models" which provides both cover saves, and defense against directed hits. A nice line of grots around the loota's and their protected, a grot line in front of the ork mobz? good to go!

Now replace grots with conscripts, or easily sacrificial infantry, as pathfinders can't move and shoot to get around the blob in front of the really heavily armored blob.

wuestenfux wrote:Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Jetseers are dramatically worse as Fortune doesn't work on other player's turns. Witchblade channel is a facsimile, but you will lose many Warlocks to Perils trying it.

DarknessEternal wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Jetseers are dramatically worse as Fortune doesn't work on other player's turns. Witchblade channel is a facsimile, but you will lose many Warlocks to Perils trying it.

In fact, this is really bad news. But there will be a new Eldar codex soon. Here we can hope that some downsides generated by the 6th ed will be fixed.

wuestenfux wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Jetseers are dramatically worse as Fortune doesn't work on other player's turns. Witchblade channel is a facsimile, but you will lose many Warlocks to Perils trying it.

In fact, this is really bad news. But there will be a new Eldar codex soon. Here we can hope that some downsides generated by the 6th ed will be fixed.

Yeah with the condition Jet councils are in now I think the fortune nerf made them more of a liability than anything. That in combination with the nerf to wichblades might make me stop my conversion project if all this pans out.

alspal8me wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Jetseers are dramatically worse as Fortune doesn't work on other player's turns. Witchblade channel is a facsimile, but you will lose many Warlocks to Perils trying it.

In fact, this is really bad news. But there will be a new Eldar codex soon. Here we can hope that some downsides generated by the 6th ed will be fixed.

Yeah with the condition Jet councils are in now I think the fortune nerf made them more of a liability than anything. That in combination with the nerf to wichblades might make me stop my conversion project if all this pans out.

Indeed, a Seer Council will eventually become a liability, miles away from a deathstar unit.

In this way, fortune and Warlocks will be overpriced which needs to fixed in the new 'dex.

wuestenfux wrote:In this way, fortune and Warlocks will be overpriced which needs to fixed in the new 'dex.

Footlocks aren't too bad. It's only the jetlocks who have been really nerfed IMO. S7 witchblades is not a significant nerf, you wound stuff on 2+ with S7, you gain instant kill (1) against T3, and tons of S7 attacks still hurt a lot against rear 10. You also do not need a farseer anymore, as you have inbuilt fortune anyway and doom is not needed with S7 weapons. Destructors are now even better.

wuestenfux wrote:In fact, this is really bad news. But there will be a new Eldar codex soon. Here we can hope that some downsides generated by the 6th ed will be fixed.

Warlocks are not that bad. They still have embolden, which allows for rerolls on psychic tests. Warlocks with embolden will complete their powers 84% of the time.

Note the following 2 rules.

In order to use one of his powers the psyker must make a Morale check (psychic) or Psychic test. p108
Embolden : The Warlock and his squad may re-roll any failed Morale check. p31 of Codex Update

Fortune is *much* less useful as its written. The only way you can use it on your opponents turn is to not use the fortuned model during your turn.
As a tarpit unit, bike warlocks seem expensive, but I will need to playtest them to really see.

DarknessEternal wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:Well, it appears that Jetbikes got a boost. With jinx, they will be harder to hit and if a Jetseer Council comes from reserve it can be deployed on the table at the start of the turn so that it can be fortuned (which is not possible at the moment).
One downside of Jetseer Councils is the nerf of the witch blades in cc being S7 AP-.

Jetseers are dramatically worse as Fortune doesn't work on other player's turns. Witchblade channel is a facsimile, but you will lose many Warlocks to Perils trying it.

Fortune's wording looks like a horrible copy-paste from Guide. I'd put this down to that the rumours would have these rules be early-testing (v1.5 as opposed to the current 1.6 or 1.7)

Page 28 - Fortune
This is a modifying power. Fortune is used at the start
of the Farseer’s Movement phase and do not require
the Farseer to have line of sight to target. Nominate
one Eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer.
This unit re-rolls any failed saves it makes until the end
of the unit’s next turn or the end of the current turn if
the unit acts in the same turn as the Farseer.

Page 28 - Guide
This is a modifying power. Guide is used at the start of
the Farseer’s Movement phase and do not require the
Farseer to have line of sight to target. Nominate one
Eldar unit with a model within 6” of the Farseer. This
unit re-rolls any failed to hit rolls made for Shooting
actions until the end of the unit’s next turn or the end
of the current turn if the unit acts in the same turn as
the Farseer.

Note how they changed very, very, few words. As it is, I'd not take it by the letter, especially since we know these aren't the finished rules.

The whole situation is a bit weird, since the rulebook does not clearly use the notion of turn and round.

Here is the rulebook entry for witchblade:

Channel: A witchblade can be channeled at the
start of the Movement phase of the wielder. The
effect lasts until the start of the wielder’s next
turn. During this time the model can re-roll any
failed invulnerable save.

wuestenfux wrote:The whole situation is a bit weird, since the rulebook does not clearly use the notion of turn and round.

Here is the rulebook entry for witchblade:

Channel: A witchblade can be channeled at the
start of the Movement phase of the wielder. The
effect lasts until the start of the wielder’s next
turn. During this time the model can re-roll any
failed invulnerable save.

The way I read that is that if a model with a witchblade passes a morale (psychic) test, they can reroll saves until the start of your next turn.
There are a few things to gather about warlocks from the rules snippets below
* Passive powers are more powerful as they cannot be blocked (embolden, enhance)
* Warlocks are mobile psychic defense
* Warlocks on foot move 8". Warlocks on bikes move 10". Warlocks on foot are no longer a 'fail' unit.
* Destructor cannot be used the same turn as witchblades
* Embolden is now critical to get the wichblade to work. It increases the chance of success from 60% to 84%.
* Witchblades can be countered by enemy psykers. This is a big risk.

Psycho-reactive weapons can be filled with energy by a psyker to enhance its destructive powers manifold. A weapon with this rule has a special ability that is only activated if the wielder successfully uses a Channel psychic power. If a psyker is equipped with a weapon with this special rule, he automatically has the Channel power as well.

Psykers have a varying number of psychic powers at their disposal. The number is not tied to the Mastery Level of the model. For example, a Space Marine Librarian has a Mastery Level of 1 but has two different psychic powers. In addition to his normal powers, every psyker has the Channel power. Without the right equipment the power is of no use, though.

Using a channel power works exactly like a normal psychic power. It is a Psychic action, counts against the Mastery level and the psyker must pass a Psychic test

Passive powers do not count as psychic powers at all. The reason to call them ‘psychic’ in the first place is to explain their heritage in the universe of Warhammer 40,000. For all game purposes they are not psychic powers. They do not count against the number of powers the psyker can use, need no Psychic test and cannot be nullified by abilities that stop psychic powers. Passive powers count in all regards as individual special rules or as weapons in case of a psychic shooting attack.

If an enemy psyker is using one of his powers within 24” of any psyker of your own, you can try to cancel the power. Roll a D6. If the result is 5 or higher, the psychic power is nullified and does not take effect that turn

Page 28 - Fortune
This is a modifying power. Fortune is used at the start
of the Farseer’s Movement phase and do not require
the Farseer to have line of sight to target. Nominate
one Eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer.
This unit re-rolls any failed saves it makes until the end
of the unit’s next turn or the end of the current turn if
the unit acts in the same turn as the Farseer.

The last sentence is hard to understand. Does it say that when the Fortuneseer leads a unit of Warlocks and the Warlocks active (channeling power) their witchblades and the Farseer fortunes the Warlocks (which makes eventually not much sense), fortune will only last until the Eldar's turn?

Destructor is a passive psychic power and does not count against the model's mastery level, labmouse42. Also, you might want to update OP, Defender Guardians can not get +1A from catapults since they do not have CCW.

wuestenfux wrote:

Page 28 - Fortune
This is a modifying power. Fortune is used at the start
of the Farseer’s Movement phase and do not require
the Farseer to have line of sight to target. Nominate
one Eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer.
This unit re-rolls any failed saves it makes until the end
of the unit’s next turn or the end of the current turn if
the unit acts in the same turn as the Farseer.

The last sentence is hard to understand. Does it say that when the Fortuneseer leads a unit of Warlocks and the Warlocks active (channeling power) their witchblades and the Farseer fortunes the Warlocks (which makes eventually not much sense), fortune will only last until the Eldar's turn?

Agreed. That is one horribly written rule. I can't figure out what they mean. I think it is a copy-paste flub

wuestenfux wrote:

Page 28 - Fortune
This is a modifying power. Fortune is used at the start
of the Farseer’s Movement phase and do not require
the Farseer to have line of sight to target. Nominate
one Eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer.
This unit re-rolls any failed saves it makes until the end
of the unit’s next turn or the end of the current turn if
the unit acts in the same turn as the Farseer.

The last sentence is hard to understand. Does it say that when the Fortuneseer leads a unit of Warlocks and the Warlocks active (channeling power) their witchblades and the Farseer fortunes the Warlocks (which makes eventually not much sense), fortune will only last until the Eldar's turn?

The whole "acts in the same turn" is just a Set Sail For Fail phrasing, in my opinion. It's perfectly clear for Guide, but murky to the extreme for a reactive ability.

Mahtamori wrote:Destructor is a passive psychic power and does not count against the model's mastery level, labmouse42. Also, you might want to update OP, Defender Guardians can not get +1A from catapults since they do not have CCW.

Are you sure its a passive power? Didn't the codex update say it was a psychic shooting power?

labmouse42 wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Destructor is a passive psychic power and does not count against the model's mastery level, labmouse42. Also, you might want to update OP, Defender Guardians can not get +1A from catapults since they do not have CCW.

Are you sure its a passive power? Didn't the codex update say it was a psychic shooting power?

Codex PDF
Page 28 - Warlock powers
A Warlock’s power is a passive power and available
permanently, so he does not need to take a Psychic test
to use it.

Rulebook PDF page 88, page number 109
They do not count against
the number of powers the psyker can use, need
no Psychic test and cannot be nullified by abilities
that stop psychic powers. Passive powers count in
all regards as individual special rules or as
weapons in case of a psychic shooting attack.

Codex Updates p31

Page 28 - Destructor
Destructor is a psychic shooting attack with the following profile
Template 5 4 Assault 1

Put since its a passive power, its just treated as a weapon.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Well, is there a limitation on the passive (destructor) and active (witchblade) powers that can be used in a turn?

wuestenfux wrote:Well, is there a limitation on the passive (destructor) and active (witchblade) powers that can be used in a turn?

One active power per turn per mastery level. Passive powers are only limited by the numbers the model is allowed to take by the codex. Of course, psychic shooting attacks are always limited by the same restrictions as a normal weapon would be.

If anyone would want to be a real arse about it, I guess you could rules lawyer that a Farseer only has a mastery level if he purchases a stone, and that a Warlock is never given a level at all. But I'm not an arse

Was just scanning BoLS this morning before class and saw this line and cried a little inside for my Dire Avengers.

"Also you can't control an objective in a vehicle. I guess those Rhinos are going to go back to being walls again instead of boxes."

While he was thinking of Marines when he wrote it this is going to impact most Eldar builds more than the fortune nerf. If this is true (don't have leaked rules just been reading about them) it will mean DAVU tanks are dead. I see Jetbikes gaining popularity as they are the only non-vehicle fast troop choice. Jetbikes also benefit for the Jink rule making them more resilient than in 5th. I also think a squad of Rangers will be valuable to Mech Eldar lists as they have the ability to direct hits to those melta guns and can camp backfield objectives all game.

If the fortune nerf turns out to be more than just a bad copy paste job I think it really hurts foot Eldar as well. The fortuned Avatar with Eldrad is a staple of that kind of list, some foot lists also use large fortuned Wraithguard squads. The reduction of the cover save also hurts the troops as guardians relied on cover to survive.

alspal8me wrote:Was just scanning BoLS this morning before class and saw this line and cried a little inside for my Dire Avengers.

"Also you can't control an objective in a vehicle. I guess those Rhinos are going to go back to being walls again instead of boxes."

While he was thinking of Marines when he wrote it this is going to impact most Eldar builds more than the fortune nerf. If this is true (don't have leaked rules just been reading about them) it will mean DAVU tanks are dead. I see Jetbikes gaining popularity as they are the only non-vehicle fast troop choice. Jetbikes also benefit for the Jink rule making them more resilient than in 5th. I also think a squad of Rangers will be valuable to Mech Eldar lists as they have the ability to direct hits to those melta guns and can camp backfield objectives all game. .

Pathfinders are going to be the new Eldar go-to for holding objectives. The ability to snipe out commissars and special/heavy weapons makes them invalueable. Given how many rending hits pathfinders get, one squad will be in every army.

What this means is that eldar won't be able to do the 5 man avenger squad cheeze for mid-end field objectives. You will need to drop the full squad on the objective to hold it. I see 10 man avenger squads with defend being more common. You might also consider using a 20 man guardian squad for the same purpose.

I guess that means the DAVU god-Falcon plan is dead.

Nah, now the god-Falcon just needs to drop off it's goods and then make sure it survives like good little porcelain cups.

Additionally, skimmer models with bases no longer provide cover saves to units hiding behind them, another nail in the coffin for DAVU. Add to that the need to hold an objective every round and you'll be looking for Troops units with more stamina, like 10-man Wraithguard units and 10-man Pathfinders.

labmouse42 wrote:
Fortune is *much* less useful as its written. The only way you can use it on your opponents turn is to not use the fortuned model during your turn.
As a tarpit unit, bike warlocks seem expensive, but I will need to playtest them to really see.

You can never use Fortune on your opponent's turn. The provision that Eldar psychic powers are used at the start of the Eldar player's turn was not done away with in the errata/update.

Pathfinders are a staple in the new ed. Well, there are cover-save ignoring weapons out there. Given the new scatter rule, Thunder cannons and Whirlwinds will be able to reduce Pathfinders or Rangers pretty quickly.

The best troop unit to hold an objective is a full Wraithguard squad.

DarknessEternal wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:
Fortune is *much* less useful as its written. The only way you can use it on your opponents turn is to not use the fortuned model during your turn.
As a tarpit unit, bike warlocks seem expensive, but I will need to playtest them to really see.

You can never use Fortune on your opponent's turn. The provision that Eldar psychic powers are used at the start of the Eldar player's turn was not done away with in the errata/update.

Perhaps I was not clear enough. Please read the following quote.

This is a modifying power. Fortune is used at the star of the Farseer’s Movement phase and do not require the Farseer to have line of sight to target. Nominate one Eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer. This unit re-rolls any failed saves it makes until the end of the unit’s next turn or the end of the current turn if the unit acts in the same turn as the Farseer

When i reffered to "it", I was speaking of the ability to reroll the saves.

If you do not have the unit act during your turn, they can use the fortuned save. The way I read this is the fortuned unit cannot move, shoot, or make any support actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wuestenfux wrote:Pathfinders are a staple in the new ed. Well, there are cover-save ignoring weapons out there. Given the new scatter rule, Thunder cannons and Whirlwinds will be able to reduce Pathfinders or Rangers pretty quickly.

The best troop unit to hold an objective is a full Wraithguard squad.

A 10 man squad of T6 troops is very hard to dislodge in shooting. Provided you have enough to keep them from getting assaulted, its an incredibly tough unit -- especially if you take conceal.

As a side, note, you can now use a serpent wall to block assaults from your units. Since you can shoot through it...

labmouse42 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

wuestenfux wrote:Pathfinders are a staple in the new ed. Well, there are cover-save ignoring weapons out there. Given the new scatter rule, Thunder cannons and Whirlwinds will be able to reduce Pathfinders or Rangers pretty quickly.

The best troop unit to hold an objective is a full Wraithguard squad.

A 10 man squad of T6 troops is very hard to dislodge in shooting. Provided you have enough to keep them from getting assaulted, its an incredibly tough unit -- especially if you take conceal.

As a side, note, you can now use a serpent wall to block assaults from your units. Since you can shoot through it...

However, an IG army may have several large S8 blasts. With a 5++ cover save and the new scatter rule, even a full Wraithguard unit will eventually be decimated quickly.

You mean lose one model?!


lol

SlaveToDorkness wrote:You mean lose one model?!


lol

Not just one model per turn or blast. The scatter rule allows precise shooting of large blasts.

I feel like a lot of Eldar players will rush out to grab pathfinders for directed hits and after a solid month of playtesting half of those players will put them back on the shelf.

The fact that they have to stay stationary, not being able to fire if they infiltrate, and you can block directed hits with transports and intervening units, puts them into a position where they might not be incredibly effective at all until at least turn 2.

At that point, I have a Hellhound, Dreadknight, Thunderfire Cannon, Frag Cannon, Whirlwind, etc. blowing them off the table. With the new rules, you are not preventing any of them from firing, especially with reserve manipulation and how reserves work. A Thunderfire Cannon, almost guaranteed to show up second turn right at the perfect LOS and still count as stationary is a big deal. Hellhounds from reserve have a 30" threat range. Even if you deploy these tanks, actually silencing them takes a lot of effort, as Extra Armor is now a mandatory upgrade (IMHO), which makes half of your penetrations irrelevent. Hull Breaches don't stack from simultaneous hits, whech means to garuntee anything you will have to have multiple units firing at them, which increases the viability of these units paired.

And I guarantee you these units will see more and more too. Sniper units can't be allowed to live long because of Directed hits.

I foresee Wraithguard being the go to tarpit and objective holder. They can last a long time, even in assault, constantly wracking up those points and generally being a pain to knock off an objective.


The Fortune ruling can only be a typo, there is no way that it only works during the Eldar's turn.

wuestenfux wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:You mean lose one model?!


lol

Not just one model per turn or blast. The scatter rule allows precise shooting of large blasts.

Decimated means to destroy one-tenth of. He was making a joke at your expense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wuestenfux wrote:
The best troop unit to hold an objective is a full Wraithguard squad.

No way will this unit ever be cost effective. Tactical Marines have nothing to fear in assaulting them, let alone anything good at assault.

DarknessEternal wrote:
The best troop unit to hold an objective is a full Wraithguard squad.
No way will this unit ever be cost effective. Tactical Marines have nothing to fear in assaulting them, let alone anything good at assault.

Eldar has nothing that comes close to Tactical Marines, possibly a full Dire Avenger unit with defend (and fortune).

I don't quite understand why people are so enthusiastic about the new warlocks.

It seems to me witchblades got seriously nerfed with only a small added bonus of an inbuilt fortune (which doesn't even make up for the horrible nerf the farseer's fortune was treated to).

Am I missing something here that makes locks more worthwhile than in 5th ed?

After reading the new rules and codex update, I am not feeling very comfortable with the Eldar in 6th edition at all.... Hmmm I was hoping they would come out with 6th ed, but I think it is the black templars and Choas marines... of course we could not have a new edition not start with SPACE MARINES.... Thanks Labmouse for starting this thread it has been educational...

On the vehicle note, do you think the Vertical Engines are worthwhile taking as it stops an immobilized result once, which is powerful, but is it worth the cost? What are everyone's thoughts. I would love Falcons more if they were BS 4.... Cheers

Seeing the changes to Farseer and Warlocks has me disappointed. I was expecting Eldar to get more psychic, not less. In fact some of those changes have me questioning the legitimacy of the leak all over again. These things don't seem in the spirit of what I thought they'd do with Eldar. I may be way off base, but Guide and Fortune seem really silly. And so do mastery level 1 Farseers.

Popenfresh wrote:
Am I missing something here that makes locks more worthwhile than in 5th ed?

No, they are demonstrably worse.

dnanoodle wrote:Seeing the changes to Farseer and Warlocks has me disappointed. I was expecting Eldar to get more psychic, not less. In fact some of those changes have me questioning the legitimacy of the leak all over again. These things don't seem in the spirit of what I thought they'd do with Eldar. I may be way off base, but Guide and Fortune seem really silly. And so do mastery level 1 Farseers.

Because that's how they are in the codex now? They can use one power (Mastery level 1), And spirit stones brings it up to 2. The problem with what your suggesting is that your looking for an actual Codex update, not a miniupdate to bring them in line with the new rules. Which is what this was.

Until the codex gets an update, that simply is how it was it. I mean the rail rule is in effect but they havn't given anything in Tau it yet. So it's likely needing an update to bring it up to Actual eldar standards.

Want someone to blame? Blame Jervis and his horrible 4th edition streamlining.

In fact, the new ruleset will not make Eldar more powerful. Its the opposite, as already said above, it may eventually provide a nerf. Now you need units that hold an objective for a whole round. Tactical Marines can fulfill this role perfectly, while Eldar units are rather weak with T3. Wraithguard are too expensive for what they can achieve at the battle field and Pathfinders are a gamble with all those cover-save ignoring weapons out there.

Whining or complaining is not what Eldar players should do when this ruleset will come true. We Eldar players will need to live with it. I always enjoyed playing Eldar when I started them in 3rd ed. Rant over.

wuestenfux wrote:Whining or complaining is not what Eldar players should do when this ruleset will come true. We Eldar players will need to live with it..

Its entirely possible that this is still a hoax, or an early edition of the ruleset and has been changed dramatically.

So if Eldrad is one of the best psychers in 40k why is he only mastery level 2, who is going to be ml 3 or 4.... as Eldar are a completely psychic race this does not make any sense to me....

So sorry to ask again, but what do people think about vectored engines are they worth the points for what they may do in the game.....

Not sure if vectored engines should be used. Fully mech armies will eventually not cut it in the 6th edition, since you need dismounted troops that are able to hold an objective for a full round. Although, fast skimmer will be required to relocate infantry quickly.

Thanks....

Yeah I read through the 'Leaked Rules' and the Codex udates, can't say that I am happy for any of my armies right now, but esp with the Eldar.... and it will probably be late 2012 that the Eldar codex comes out if at all... Which really screws us for a little while.... hmmmm

I will continue to play Eldar because I fell in love with them in Rogue trader and 2nd ed. , I do miss being able to play an all Harlequin army, but those days are gone, GW or the public do not care enough about the Eldar for it to happen. I was happy to see a Corsair Army list in IA book, they look interesting...

Well, not all is bad for Eldar in the leaked ruleset. Wraithguard are fun to play and they are hard to take down for any army. Pathfinders good a boost able to inflict directed hits. Squadrons of Warwalkers are tougher to beat. Falcons and related tanks (Fire Prims, Nightspinners) are more durable. Banshees with their power weapons got a boost too.

If these rules are close to the 6th edition release, there are a few changes that I see happening.

I don't know how effective serpents will be. As I own 9 of them, it would be a big hit for me as I spent a lot of time and money building the models. Currently they provide my units three main advantages.
* They are fast (12-24")
* They are survivable
* They let me score objectives with troops inside.
If these rules are accurate, the serpents lose 2 of out 3 of these things. While they may not become slower, with everything else becoming faster their relative speed is slower.
Unlike rhinos, which are 35 points, serpents are a big investment. This makes them just being nice add-ons for any army.

Under these proposed rules, I see foot'dar armies becoming much more common. As most of the army is fleet, they get a 16" charge -- enough to be in assault on turn two.
20 or so pathfinders being used to hold back objectives and snipe at exposed troops. They are really good at this under these rules and should be used as such.
10-20 warlocks leading the assault. Having a built-in 75% to save makes them very good at bogging down units and cracking tanks. Multiple STR 7 hits on rear armor will open it up.
10-30 harlequins/fire dragons/banshees filling in the rest. Harlequins are hard to shoot, dragons are deadly in shooting, and banshees can tear up a doomed unit. All 3 of these are very viable.

In summary, I hope that there is a change to the eldar codex if these rules are close to 6th edition. I like my army in tanks, as it fits what 40k has become. Losing that and going with a foot'dar approach would not be nearly as much fun IMHO.

* Edited as I had a Rick Perry moment there with my counting.

I second this. Mech Eldar is fun to play. But may lose an edge in the future. However, I'm not sure if the foot'dar armies are viable, since the approaching ''horde'' will stand at least one round in the line of fire. Harlies are hard to target and Warlocks are rather survivable if they can rely on rerollable invulnerable saves. Banshees and Fire Dragons on the other end, are easer to target and wipe out.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Popenfresh wrote:
Am I missing something here that makes locks more worthwhile than in 5th ed?

No, they are demonstrably worse.

Please demonstrate.

Other than witchblades going from S9 to S7, what else is made worse? If that's the only thing, I think I'll take it in exchange for a squad of warlocks being able to fortune themselves.

I agree that footdar may be more played, but I do not think more survivable, we won't be able to stand up to horde armies that well, the pathfinders are good, but there is a lot that ignores cover. Maybe will have to pull my Reapers off the shelves... I do miss playing them... I like wraithguard, backed up by a squad of harlies and they are tough, but so expensive. I see the fusion pistol is getting nerfed a little S7 instead of 8 now, Though with 2d6 suppose you could still pop landraiders...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remember that there is a chance that they could peril or that another psycher could nullify it..

Now please correct me if I am wrong, but can 1 psycher attempt to nullify any other psychers powers in a 24" radius, if so that seems pretty ridiculus, but is like the space marine shroud, I think there should be a limmit to how many times you could use this for each psycher. Let me know if I am interpretting this wrong..

wuestenfux wrote:In fact, the new ruleset will not make Eldar more powerful. Its the opposite, as already said above, it may eventually provide a nerf. Now you need units that hold an objective for a whole round. Tactical Marines can fulfill this role perfectly, while Eldar units are rather weak with T3. Wraithguard are too expensive for what they can achieve at the battle field and Pathfinders are a gamble with all those cover-save ignoring weapons out there.

Whining or complaining is not what Eldar players should do when this ruleset will come true. We Eldar players will need to live with it. I always enjoyed playing Eldar when I started them in 3rd ed. Rant over.

I suggest looking into the Corsair list from IA11. It is everything Eldar used to be.

Eiluj The Farseer wrote:Remember that there is a chance that they could peril or that another psycher could nullify it..

Perils is a fairly small chance, 1 in 16. Being nullified, however, is a much greater risk.

Eiluj The Farseer wrote:Now please correct me if I am wrong, but can 1 psycher attempt to nullify any other psychers powers in a 24" radius, if so that seems pretty ridiculus, but is like the space marine shroud, I think there should be a limmit to how many times you could use this for each psycher. Let me know if I am interpretting this wrong..

p109 of the 'leaked' rulebook.
"If you have several psykers
in range, or one of the psykers has a special rule
or wargear to nullify enemy powers, you can only
start one attempt to stop the power"

In general I think Exarchs got a bit of a boost. As they count as characters, their solid stats and special weapons give them some of the more useful Directed Attack options. For the 4+ save aspects, the 3+ of Exarch armor effectively protects them from Directed Attacks.

Also, I may be messing something up, but I think Wraithlords got more effective in close combat. They come with a Monstrous CCW, and if a heavy weapon is taken, it counts as an additional CCW thanks to relentless, giving 4 swings on the charge, 3 in subsequent rounds. A bit of a consolation for being easier to hit.

labmouse42 wrote:

Eiluj The Farseer wrote:Remember that there is a chance that they could peril or that another psycher could nullify it..

Perils is a fairly small chance, 1 in 16. Being nullified, however, is a much greater risk.

Eiluj The Farseer wrote:Now please correct me if I am wrong, but can 1 psycher attempt to nullify any other psychers powers in a 24" radius, if so that seems pretty ridiculus, but is like the space marine shroud, I think there should be a limmit to how many times you could use this for each psycher. Let me know if I am interpretting this wrong..

p109 of the 'leaked' rulebook.
"If you have several psykers
in range, or one of the psykers has a special rule
or wargear to nullify enemy powers, you can only
start one attempt to stop the power"

So with this said, a psychic hood can shut down any psychers power attempts in range on a 4up, that will put down the warlocks fortune power quite readily.

Well, I'd suggest that the Eldar players should wait and see. The new edition might provide some nerfs in the first place. But we'll see a new Eldar codex at the horizon which may compensate these nerfs a bit - at least we can hope.

Eiluj wrote: So with this said, a psychic hood can shut down any psychers power attempts in range on a 4up, that will put down the warlocks fortune power quite readily.

Sorry for nit-picking, but only the SW psychic hood negates on a 4+. C:SM hoods negate much more commonly, as its a LD test plus D6, and warlocks have a LD of 8.

Taking that one unit and saying 'If someone brings a hood its GG for the eldar' is an inaccurate statement, however.
Hoods today can put a significant hampering on Eldrad, yet people still bring him. Provided that the Eldar general has some tactical sense between his ears, he will realize the proper target priority and remove the hood quickly.
Let me give another example. Scarab farms are neutralized by indirect fire from nightspinners or manticores. Does that mean that a necron player won't bring them because they can be counterd? Of course not.

In other words, just because people can take hoods, does not mean that warlocks are not viable. It means that one needs to be aware of the counters to them and neutralize the counters as quickly as possible.

So far, i really like the new rules. I think they're overall fresh and interesting. It seems like there's been put a whole lot of thought into them. It really seems that a great deal of the more "broken" or limiting elements has been accounted for. There is, however, a handful of the new rules i cannot say I'm looking forward to - such as the new "12" fallback = destroyed"-rule or the turn sequences and rules, which allows for you to jump in and out of transports in the very same turn.

I started playing Eldars in 5th. So i cannot argue how they've been modified through out the editions. But fact remains, that they're a much enjoyable army to play, that requires a great attention towards strategic and tactical elements of the game. Like many others, I've based my Mechanized list around Wave Serpents. In the 6th edition, these doesn't come off as a durable choice. The new capture rules really has them (as have been discussed several times throughout this threat).

I do agree, from reading through the posts, that it does seem we're looking at good portion of nerfs towards the Eldar. Personally, I'd prefer to see the Eldars further reflect their racial traits through the actual game play, rather than fluff alone. As per these traits, i hardly get the feeling, that these have been fully met. I wouldn't want the Eldars as a top tier army in any regards, as i do like the challenge and dependency of superior tactic sense to prevail. I would, however, enjoy rules that supported the Eldars as one of the superior armies in the regards of Psychic Powers, rather than but a mediocre army in terms of both active, passive abilities, both offensively and defensively.
- In other words; What the Eldars do, they should do to the point of near-perfection (IMO!).

The way the Eldars are supposed to be, is a race inferior in defensive capabilities, lacking sturdiness and toughness, but compensating through superior defensive/offensive abilities and "hard counter" oriented units through their ranks. As a stand-alone army, they might have fit into those categories just fine. But as we broadly expand our perspective, the drawbacks are starting to shine through.