Gorechild wrote:I'm not sure about 18" rapid fire, 2 shots @ 9" seems a little odd to me. But then again, any greater range also seems wrong. I don't know the current Wraithguard stats of the top of my head, are the BS/WS 4 at the moment?

Just a little thing. Rapid fire here won't make weapons shoot twice at 9". It's always 12" no matter the max range.

Edit: Added a quote.

Really?! I was sure it was two shots at half range.

Anyway... at 185 points using dayve110's suggestions were roughly compairing them to a tac squad with PF. Doing some quick maths they dont seem hugely unballanced in close combat. At range they'll completely destroy the marines, but thats sort of their point

FNP....As DAaddict said would make perfect sense for wraithguard, but might make them too hard to kill, massed fire would do nothing and you'd have to depend on killing 2-3 a turn with low AP weapons. This could make an Iyanden list stupidly powerful vs anything that wont be able to slog it out in combat for several turns.

Gorechild wrote:Really?! I was sure it was two shots at half range.

That was the old rules. It really only affects guns that are rapid fire but not 24" range. The only ones I can think of are Tau FW.

Gorechild wrote:Ooh yay An interesting unit
First things first, they need to be troops and nothing but troops, no "you need 10 + warlock, far to much money, and no points for anything else to play Iyanden" sort of troops

My thoughts exactly. Making them 4 with a lock (so 5) rather than minimum unit sixe of 3 makes it less... spammy. The unit i put forward would be troops. More on this later.

Gorechild wrote:I'm not sure about 18" rapid fire, 2 shots @ 9" seems a little odd to me. But then again, any greater range also seems wrong. I don't know the current Wraithguard stats of the top of my head, are the BS/WS 4 at the moment?

current = 4 4 5 6 1 4 1 10 3+
proposed = 4 4 5 6 2 4 1 10 3+
Besides rules changes, I've added in an extra wound. With all the same equipment there would be no wound allocation shenanigans either.

Gorechild wrote:Everything else suggested seems reasonable though. gives the option to fit a basic squad in a wave serpent, or have a big foot slogging squad. This would allow a bit of variety in Iyanden lists whilst still being fluffy. I like the "poison immunity" rule, but it might benefit from a name change, seeing as the two examples yuo suggested have nothing to do with poison

Well... any suggestions? Whats the big nid titan got? It's essentially the same thing regarding "always wounds on" weapons but can't remember the name of it.

DAaddict wrote:1 - Couple of options - The issue is 35 pts for a nasty 12" range gun on a T6 model. Just doesn't cut it. So the choice is lower the cost or play with the abilities. As they are wraithbone and not "live" I think one option is just to give them FNP. Leaves them susceptible to AP2 weapons but makes them very resilient. Their weapon, as is, is very nasty but with the range and their relative weakness in HTH they tend to get sucked into HTH. A one shot and done unit.
2 - Perhaps give them something in the mini-Wraithlord model so HTH they are PW equivalent so 1 S5 PW vs Wraithlord popping 2 S10 PW attacks.
3 - Do both of these. FNP and PW and you are arguably worth 35 pts a piece.
4 - If all these seem OT, I think leave them as is but lower the cost to 25 each.
5 - I would not give them an invulnerable built-in but the ability of a warlock to add conceal or enhance should be the defensive choices presented.

1- 35 points is a bit much considering how quickly they fall when facing anything S8+ AP3+ in large quantities. Consider its almost 800 points for 2 full units loosing even a few a turn can really hurt. FNP on these would mean the WL would end up with FNP also, both of these i feel are over-powered. I have other options to get this into the Eldar list. I'm thinking Warlock power...
Endure: The psyker and his unit gain the USR: Feel no Pain.
I agree with the one shot wonder statement. I'm increasingly running Yriel with these guys to charge out alone and intercept an enemy unit, they pile in and Yriel uses Eye of Wrath... very fun!
All in all i think W:2 is a better solution, not as strong as FNP but if you charge them your going to have to spend a long time dragging them down...
2 - Included in my proposed rules.
3 - Agreed, mine are at 40 ea with PW and W:2, with the other benefits making up the excess to 40
4 - 25 would be ok, but i'd rather have the unit perform better than feel slightly better because i've wasted less points ^.^
5 - I'm thinking the invun would be an upgrade, possibly a rather costly one... conceal doesn't help in combat and enhance will ensure you get shot up.

DAaddict wrote:To allow the dead army as an option, I would like to see a farseer or autarch named character to unlock them as troop choices all the way down to 5-"man" squads. If you go with a suped up wraithguard that means @200 pt squads instead of @400pt troop choices. Right now in a 1500 to 1800 pt game you would be talking probably 2 20-man troops and 3 wraithlords and be forced to be a walking army because of the squad size.

I've run Iyanden lists. And thats pretty accurate. Theres enough space to squeeze in a little bit of mech but its useless without other mech support. I'm thinking a 0-1 limit on WG with an Iyanden based HQ removing the limit... such as Yriel or Iyana (old model)

Gorechild wrote:Anyway... at 185 points using dayve110's suggestions were roughly compairing them to a tac squad with PF. Doing some quick maths they dont seem hugely unballanced in close combat. At range they'll completely destroy the marines, but thats sort of their point

FNP....As DAaddict said would make perfect sense for wraithguard, but might make them too hard to kill, massed fire would do nothing and you'd have to depend on killing 2-3 a turn with low AP weapons. This could make an Iyanden list stupidly powerful vs anything that wont be able to slog it out in combat for several turns.

Quick math(hammer) time?
4 WG + 1 Lock Vs 10 marines w/ PF and flamer/ML

Shooting... Assuming rapid fire range. Full squad for both sides.
Marines = (assuming flamer hits 4) 1.37 wounds on WG (27 points)
WG = 4.56 dead (67 points)

Combat kills... Assuming no charges. Full squad for both sides.
Marines = 0.25
WG = 1.333
Lock = 0.28
Sarge with PF = 0.83
Totals...
Marines wound 1.08 (21 points)
WG kill 1.61 (24 points)

Shooting and combat...
Marines kill 48 points worth
WG kill 91 points worth

So WG are a bit OP with that... i did the math with 1 wound ea and marines killed 95 points. Possibly keep the WG at 40 points with W:1.
But this is only against marines... any horde would utterly crush these guys, and am pretty certain assault termies could give them a good go!

hmm.... shooting and combat combined, as above with 2 wounds
Ork boyz time! 30 slugga boys = 180 points
Orks kill 1.36 WG 0.5 WL = 67 points
WG kill 5.6 = 33.6 points

So WG are 2x better than marines but 1/2 as good as orksis

Now for assault termines with 4.5 TH termies (180 points)
WG kill 1.52 (shooting)
WG strike first 0.58 (combat) total = 2.1 (84 points)
2.4 Termies left, kill 2 (80 points)

Thoughts?

Horde units hit on 4+, wound on 6+, and suffer a save on 3+. The chance for each attack to succeed is 2,78%.
Meanwhile, the Wraithguard hit back with 3+ to hit and 2+ to wound. The chance for each attack to succeed is 55,56%
While the threat-range of a Horde unit is quite a bit larger, generally speaking a unit of IG/Ork-equivalent will need a lot of attacks to win the combat.

They're a tar-pit.

I don't think Rapid Fire is all that necessary. While I do think they should be W2 with 18" Heavy 1 (and have Relentless, just for form's sake) with increased cost (slightly). Additionally, max unit size should be small, 3 to 5/6 with additional Warlock.

As for poison immunity, I don't think that's a good idea. While fitting, it does present problems since poison weapons tend to be meant and costed to take down specifically troops like Wraithguard/lords. The weakness should be there simply for gameplay.

Back in 3rd edition they had an interesting rule which basically said "Ld-, the Wraith(guard) automatically succeed any LD tests" - thoughts? Under 5th edition they'd still be vulnerable to No Retreat!, but any powers (Mind War) that targeted LD would fail - a sort of enhanced fearless.

Mahtamori wrote:Horde units hit on 4+, wound on 6+, and suffer a save on 3+. The chance for each attack to succeed is 2,78%.
Meanwhile, the Wraithguard hit back with 3+ to hit and 2+ to wound. The chance for each attack to succeed is 55,56%
While the threat-range of a Horde unit is quite a bit larger, generally speaking a unit of IG/Ork-equivalent will need a lot of attacks to win the combat.

They're a tar-pit.

I don't think Rapid Fire is all that necessary. While I do think they should be W2 with 18" Heavy 1 (and have Relentless, just for form's sake) with increased cost (slightly). Additionally, max unit size should be small, 3 to 5/6 with additional Warlock.

As for poison immunity, I don't think that's a good idea. While fitting, it does present problems since poison weapons tend to be meant and costed to take down specifically troops like Wraithguard/lords. The weakness should be there simply for gameplay.

Back in 3rd edition they had an interesting rule which basically said "Ld-, the Wraith(guard) automatically succeed any LD tests" - thoughts? Under 5th edition they'd still be vulnerable to No Retreat!, but any powers (Mind War) that targeted LD would fail - a sort of enhanced fearless.

I like your Idea. I have a question though, If WG come in groups of 3-5 lets say, if accompanied by a warlock would they still count as a troop choice? Also if you rop thier unit size by half like that you may want to give them at least Heavy 2 so they can do a bit of damage.

Dealing damage isn't really the point of all and everything. At 5+1 models and roughly 250 points you get 10 T6 3+ wounds and 1 T3 4++ wound. This is a whole lot harder to plow through than 9+1 Striking Scorpions (10 T3 3+ wounds) at roughly 180-200 points (depending on upgrades). Wraithguard are a whole lot more likely (with power weapons) to win by combat resolution as well against select targets and less likely to suffer decreased performance subsequent turns.

Setting them as Heavy 2 would significantly increase their cost as well as firmly have them require shooting to return their points. This means that instead of being a road-block (that is bloody dangerous for a tank to tank shock or even get close to) and having synergy with the rest of the army, they go to being a unit that you WANT to engage in melee so they don't do anything.

My vision of Wraithguard is that it's a black-hole for points, but that when you sit them down on an objective, the enemy will either not go their or spend a LOT of firepower taking them out.

Just have Banshees or Striking Scorpions sit pretty in a nearby forest, or have a unit of Rangers seek protection from flamers in their vicinity.

Mahtamori wrote:Dealing damage isn't really the point of all and everything. At 5+1 models and roughly 250 points you get 10 T6 3+ wounds and 1 T3 4++ wound. This is a whole lot harder to plow through than 9+1 Striking Scorpions (10 T3 3+ wounds) at roughly 180-200 points (depending on upgrades). Wraithguard are a whole lot more likely (with power weapons) to win by combat resolution as well against select targets and less likely to suffer decreased performance subsequent turns.

Setting them as Heavy 2 would significantly increase their cost as well as firmly have them require shooting to return their points. This means that instead of being a road-block (that is bloody dangerous for a tank to tank shock or even get close to) and having synergy with the rest of the army, they go to being a unit that you WANT to engage in melee so they don't do anything.

My vision of Wraithguard is that it's a black-hole for points, but that when you sit them down on an objective, the enemy will either not go their or spend a LOT of firepower taking them out.

Just have Banshees or Striking Scorpions sit pretty in a nearby forest, or have a unit of Rangers seek protection from flamers in their vicinity.

The black hole for points is my concern. Like you said for objective based games thats a good idea plop them down on an objective and your oppent will ignore it or fight for it till the end of the game. Since they have ws4 bs4 st5 t6 they aren't going to do too bad in close combat, unless they go up against something with equal or higher st the opponent is going to have to roll high to get any hits in add to the fact that they are fearless with a 3+ save i think makes them way tough. Also if we are cutting down the unit size by half I don't see the problem with the point increase from having a heavy 2 weapon.

Alot easier than splitting up your post, my input in in Orange.

Mahtamori wrote:Horde units hit on 4+, wound on 6+, and suffer a save on 3+. The chance for each attack to succeed is 2,78%.
Meanwhile, the Wraithguard hit back with 3+ to hit and 2+ to wound. The chance for each attack to succeed is 55,56%
While the threat-range of a Horde unit is quite a bit larger, generally speaking a unit of IG/Ork-equivalent will need a lot of attacks to win the combat.
They're a tar-pit.
No arguments there, but with such a small high costed unit the tar-pit scenario will not last long (and orks arn't wounded on 3+)

I don't think Rapid Fire is all that necessary. While I do think they should be W2 with 18" Heavy 1 (and have Relentless, just for form's sake) with increased cost (slightly). Additionally, max unit size should be small, 3 to 5/6 with additional Warlock.
Having such a small unit size would seriously decrease their firepower and survivability. Also with such a small unit the lock could easily be taken out by wound allocation, removing whatever buff you were relying on. Having 18" heavy 1 weapons is an option, but not combined with a small unit size. Rapid-fire or heavy 2 would be needed to keep the killy-ness of the unit (because lets face it, they suck in CC)

As for poison immunity, I don't think that's a good idea. While fitting, it does present problems since poison weapons tend to be meant and costed to take down specifically troops like Wraithguard/lords. The weakness should be there simply for gameplay.
Currently 10 WG and a lock with conceal and spirit seer is 396 i think. you can get 20+ scouts with snipers for that.
Assuming i'm running an average of 3.5" per turn... It will take me at least until turn 3 to get in range.
40 shots = 20 hits = 10 wounds (3.3 rending)
Thats 4.4 dead WG.
If anything WG are costed to withstand fire, poison weapons make a mockery of this considering most poison weapons are not that expensive and do perfectly well against other targets.
Don't even want to think about gaunts reaching combat with poisoned attacks... or how much of it the DE will end up getting.

I think "Resilent: All attacks that wound on a pre-determined roll subtract 1 from that roll" could fit in a little nicer. (snipers (and most poison weapons) wound on a 5+, witchblades on a 3+)

Back in 3rd edition they had an interesting rule which basically said "Ld-, the Wraith(guard) automatically succeed any LD tests" - thoughts? Under 5th edition they'd still be vulnerable to No Retreat!, but any powers (Mind War) that targeted LD would fail - a sort of enhanced fearless.
Not that great, good Vs Mind War, but i wouldn't pay any points for that as standard fearless is fine as it is.

Punisher91090 wrote:I like your Idea. I have a question though, If WG come in groups of 3-5 lets say, if accompanied by a warlock would they still count as a troop choice? Also if you rop thier unit size by half like that you may want to give them at least Heavy 2 so they can do a bit of damage.

I think that WG should always count as an elite choice in a basic Eldar army. I don't like the current rule of letting them become troops if you max them out. The same applies to Jetbikes; move them back to Fast Attack.

That being said, I desperately want them to bring back Codex: Craftworlds. It gave the Eldar quite a bit more options in terms of flavor of armies. They could even expand it a bit to allow for more specilization a la Marines.

(For all the non-Eldar players out there, I totally support the same principle for your army (except Marines, you have too many). Personally, I feel every force should have a general codex and an expansion one that shifts around the FOC and gives some special army options; preferably it would all be in the same book.)

I would prefer not making more Space Marines. The game is infested with them enough as it is. However, if their point is survival and their weaponry is meant to be threatening, then I'd say survival is up for discussions. I'd try to avoid modifiers, though, since this is WH40K and not Fantasy.

Still, they should have an achilles heel. Makes the game more interesting. It should preferably NOT be something that caters to the current world-wide meta-game, though. Just look how Fire Dragons changed from 3rd to 5th edition without really receiving any changes. From being the red headed (literally) stepchild to being the most used aspect.

Grakmar wrote:

Punisher91090 wrote:I like your Idea. I have a question though, If WG come in groups of 3-5 lets say, if accompanied by a warlock would they still count as a troop choice? Also if you drop thier unit size by half like that you may want to give them at least Heavy 2 so they can do a bit of damage.

I think that WG should always count as an elite choice in a basic Eldar army. I don't like the current rule of letting them become troops if you max them out. The same applies to Jetbikes; move them back to Fast Attack.

IMO they should just be moved to troops full stop. The dream of having Codex: Iyanden, that is the same but wraithguards count as troop is NEVER going to happen, so the best we can hope for is for it to be easy to make viable lists that reflect each craftworld.

That being said, the sort of points/profiles we are looking at are more akin to terminators than marines. Individual WG would be too vauable (in my eyes) to just be able to accept 2 casualties a turn if there were only 4 in a squad. 10 x 1 wound is a lot more "troop like" that 5 x 2 wound, and outside of deamons, an entire army of inv saves on troop. If we want them to just be troops then they wil have to be geared/costed appropriatly, because what I'm seeing at the moment all seems a little to elite.

Who says troops must be cheap? I see no problem having WG that are considered 'powerful' as a troops choice. I have another version, lets see how it goes.

TROOPS 0-1 choice However, taking an Iyanden character will remove the limit (in a new dex i'd have Yriel and Iyana)
WRAITHGUARD - 165
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
4 4 5 4(6) 2 4 2 10 3+
Currently they seem to be a soft chioce in combat, I've used them enough and they are. Power weapons seemed a bit OP on reflection so i took them out, you may also notice i increased attacks to 2 instead and lowered the cost by 5 points (an extra attack is not wirth the cost of a PW in this case)
You may also notice the T:4(6) providing the achillies heel of the unit. They are all but immune to small arms fire (unless you have quite a bit of it) but anything S:8 will deal enough damage to crack open the 'shell' or casing so to speak and cause ID
SQUAD
The unit consists of 4 wraithguard and 1 warlock (165 points), upto 4 more wraithguard may be chosen for +35 points each.
The unit may purchase Runes of the Undying for +5 points per model.
ignoring the warlock, unit size now 4-8. If 5-10 was too much and 3-6 not enough... this is the obvious choice to keep everyone happy.
Runes of the undying. Are they a 5 point upgrade? i don't know. Need some input on that.

SPECIAL RULES
Infantry.
Fearless: Wraithguard are not living creatures and are therefore not affected by emotions such as dread and urges of self-preservation. They are Fearless, and confer this ability to any characters joining them.
Wraithsight: Wraithguard do not see the world as mortals do, but instead witness an ever-shifting image of spirits that makes them slower to react to changes on the battlefield. At the start of their turn, roll a D6 for each Wraithguard unit that is not within 6” of a friendly psyker. On a roll of a 1, the Wraithguard is inactive until the end of their turn. Inactive models may not move, shoot, assault or attack in close combat, and are hit automatically in close combat.
Poison Immunity: Wraithguard are not truly alive and their form is made up of dense layers of wraithbone. There are no weak points to exploit and ‘mortal’ wounds can easily be shrugged off. Any attacks that would wound on a guaranteed roll (such as witchblade attacks or sniper rifles) will require a roll of a 5+ to wound.
No -/+ modifiers in sight. Simply reduces all poisoned weapons to 5+, yes its still a modifier but its a simple flat 5+ rather than -/+ effects.
Relentless: Wraithguard have the USR: Relentless

WARGEAR
Wraithcannon: The wraithcannon works by opening up small Warp space/real space holes, tearing apart the target as it is ripped between dimensions. The wraithcannon always wounds on a roll of 2+ and a roll to wound of a 6 inflicts instant death to the victim (regardless of its Toughness value). Against targets with an Armour Value a wraithcannon always inflicts a glancing hit on a roll of 3 or 4 and a penetrating hit on a roll of 5 or 6. It has the following profile:
Range: 18” S: X AP: 2 Rapid Fire
Were all agreed they need a range boost right? 18" seems ok to me.
S: X has the same effect as before and AP: 2 is fine. If they were assault 1 i'd consider AP: 1
But... assault doesn't cut it. If you get within 12" of this unit without getting into combat, you should die. Heavy 2 would be OTT so rapid fire is a nice middleground
With the general slowness of the unit and the T:4 (6) they can be taken out from afar quite safely
Runes of the Undying: Wraithguard units are often fitted with these powerful runes designed to keep the spirit within strong and in control of its physical form. A Wraithguard unit with Runes of the Undying receives a 5+ invulnerable save.

I would be okay with the proposed stats of the post directly above me. All that would be necessary is to divvy up the points for the separate wargear and powers or whatever. Like the runes of Undying for 10 points or something.

10 points? each or per unit?

Idk 10 points for whole unit if accompanied by a spiritseer. 5 points per model without spiritseer. I know thats expensive but I'm just making an example it doesn't have to cost 10 points or 5 points. Just throw runes of the undying on as addable wargear that costs however many points.

But thats what i did. It's not an automatic upgrade but a cost at 5 points each. Not sure on the points though. I'd consider 25 for the unit, that would put runes between 3-6 per model depending on unit size.

Sounds good to me I'm glad we were thinking along the same line. I just didn't word it as well as you did.

How about this:

Construct: A Wraithguard/Wraithlord is a wraithbone construct with no organs or nervous system, as such the Wraithguard/Wraithlord have very few weakpoints. A Wraithguard/Wraithlord is not destroyed from instant death, but are still capable of being if the attack has sufficient strength. Additionally, any weapon which would wound a model on a specific value will instead use the same strength it would have when attacking a vehicle.

This makes the guard/lord immune to poison, force weapons, etc, but makes guards more vulnerable to S8+ (and Witchblades)

This could work, I'd go for a couple of little changes mainly to make it more clear, but what about...

Wraithbone: All Wraithguard and Wraithlord's are made of wraithbone, they don't have organs or nervous system and their very bodies are harder than steel. To represent the incredible properties of Wraithbone both Wraithguard and Wraithlords are immmune to instant death. In addition to this, any weapon that normally wounds a model on a specific value will instead use the strength it would have when attacking a vehicle. For exaple: a Witchblades normally wound a toughness 8 model on a 2+, but due to the resiliance of wraithbone they can only wound a Wraithlord on a roll 3+ (Strength 9 against Toughness 8).

Its basically the same, I just had to read through your post a couple of times to make compete sense, so I thought I could tidy it up

Tidy is good.

Just to recap, do we have an informal agreement that Guardian Storm and Guardian Defenders should be further integrated? I'm planning on updating my fandex borrowing core ideas from this thread.

plus, the way I worded it and the example makes it look like a less powerfull advantage

I think the end product of the guardian debate was: smaller squads: 5-10. 1 heavy weapon platform or 2 special weapons (flamer or fusion) per 5 guardians. can replace shuriken catapult with pistol + CCW for free.

although that is briefly cuting down 2-3 pages of discussion into a single line so I may have missed somthing

So does that mean we are going onto the next unit?or are we still discussing Guardians and Wraithguard/wraithlord?

Guardians 65 points
Standard Statline
Squad: 5 Guardians and 1 Warlock
Weapons: Shuriken Catapults and plasma grenades.

Options:
- Up to 10 additional Guardians may be added to the unit for +8 points per model
- For every 5 Guardian models in the unit two Guardian models may be upgraded to crew a Shuriken Cannon armed platform, alternativly for every 5 Guardian models in the unit two Guardian models may replace their ordinary weapons with a flamer, fusion gun or power weapon at +5 points per pair.
- The Shuriken Cannon may be upgraded to a Scatter Laser at +5 points, an Eldar Missile Launcher, Star Cannon or a Brightlance at +10 (RoF 3) points, or a Vibro Cannon, Shadow Weaver or a D-cannon at +15 points. (Artillary rules, scroll up a few posts)
- Any Guardian models in the squad may replace their Shuriken Catapult with a Long-barreled Shuriken Catapult (R:24" S:4 AP:5 Assault 1) or Shuriken Pistol and close combat weapons for free.
- The Warlock may be upgraded with any options in the Warlock entry for the points cost indicated.
- The squad may take a Dedicated Transport at the points cost indicated.

Special Rules:
Fleet
Weapons Platform: A heavy weapon mounted on a weapon platform counts as an assault weapon in all respects and must be in coherency with at least one of the two crew members to fire. One crewman may fire the platform instead of his weapon, the other may shoot with his own weapon freely. If both crew are in coherency with the platform , both may forgo their shooting to fire the platform as Twin0Linked. Line of sight and range are always drawn from the platform. If all crewmen are killed the platform is removed. The platform model itself is always ignored, including measuring ranges to the unit, and when counting the number of models in the unit. It is essentially a marker; assume that the gun is actually carried by the crew member firing it (except when measuring LOS and range as described above)

(Extra bits)
D-Cannon: The D-cannon always wounds on a 2+, and on a roll of a 6 it inflicts instant death on the victim (regardless of its Toughness value). Against targets with an Armour Value, a D-cannon always inflicts a glancing hit on a roll of 3 or 4 and a penetrating hit on a roll of 5 or 6. It has the following profile:
Range: G36” S: X AP: 2 Heavy 1, Blast, Pinning
Vibro Cannon: When firing a vibro cannon, roll to hit (the firer does not need to pick a target). If the vibro cannon hit, draw a single 36” line from the vibro cannon in any direction. Any unit which the line passes through suffers D3+2 hits. For each vibro cannon in the battery that hits (after the first) add D3 to the number of hits and 1 to the S of those hits. A target with an Armour Value that is hit by a vibro cannon always suffers a single glancing hit (per Vibro Cannon that hit). Any wounds caused will result in the target unit becoming pinned unless they pass an I test (jump infantry, jetpack infantry, jet bike infantry and monstrous creatues are immune to this).
Range: 36” S: 4 AP: - Heavy 1
Shadow Weaver: Monofilament, any unit that gets hits by this weapon will count as in difficult and dangerous terrain the next time it moves.
Range: G48” S: 6 AP: - Heavy 1, Blast, Pinning, Rending, Monofilament

TROOPS 0-1 choice However, taking an Iyanden character will remove the limit (in a new dex i'd have Yriel and Iyana)
WRAITHGUARD - 165
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
4 4 5 6 2 4 2 10 3+

SQUAD
The unit consists of 4 wraithguard and 1 warlock (165 points), upto 4 more wraithguard may be chosen for +35 points each.
The unit may purchase Runes of the Undying for +25 points for the unit.

SPECIAL RULES
Infantry.
Fearless: Wraithguard are not living creatures and are therefore not affected by emotions such as dread and urges of self-preservation. They are Fearless, and confer this ability to any characters joining them.
Wraithsight: Wraithguard do not see the world as mortals do, but instead witness an ever-shifting image of spirits that makes them slower to react to changes on the battlefield. At the start of their turn, roll a D6 for each Wraithguard unit that is not within 6” of a friendly psyker. On a roll of a 1, the Wraithguard is inactive until the end of their turn. Inactive models may not move, shoot, assault or attack in close combat, and are hit automatically in close combat.
Wraithbone: All Wraithguard and Wraithlord's are made of wraithbone, they don't have organs or nervous system and their very bodies are harder than steel. To represent the incredible properties of Wraithbone both Wraithguard and Wraithlords are immmune to instant death. In addition to this, any weapon that normally wounds a model on a specific value will instead use the strength it would have when attacking a vehicle.
Relentless: Wraithguard have the USR: Relentless

WARGEAR
Wraithcannon: The wraithcannon works by opening up small Warp space/real space holes, tearing apart the target as it is ripped between dimensions. The wraithcannon always wounds on a roll of 2+ and a roll to wound of a 6 inflicts instant death to the victim (regardless of its Toughness value). Against targets with an Armour Value a wraithcannon always inflicts a glancing hit on a roll of 3 or 4 and a penetrating hit on a roll of 5 or 6. It has the following profile:
Range: 18” S: X AP: 2 Rapid Fire
Runes of the Undying: Wraithguard units are often fitted with these powerful runes designed to keep the spirit within strong and in control of its physical form. A Wraithguard unit with Runes of the Undying receives a 5+ invulnerable save.

If (almost) everyone is happy with these then we can more on.
As we have just done wraithguard i'd suggest we can do wraithlords.
Or considering were working on troops we could also do rangers.
First person to post a unit entry decides the next unit for discussion?

As far as the wraith guard go I think the rules are okay, but I think they might be a little too cheap. depends if we decide on their attacks counting as power weapons, but I think a small point rise wouldn't be unreasonable. What do others think?

Rangers please. I think Pathfinders Should be able to fire 48" and be able to have an Exarch for however many points. need suggestions on wargear and abilities.

Gorechild wrote:As far as the wraith guard go I think the rules are okay, but I think they might be a little too cheap. depends if we decide on their attacks counting as power weapons, but I think a small point rise wouldn't be unreasonable. What do others think?

Having power weapon attacks would make them too killy in combat. They should have a weakness which would be combat, however T(6) 3+/5++ should help off-set this.
If they get PW then price will go up but as they are proposed i think the points are ok.

Punisher91090 wrote:Rangers please. I think Pathfinders Should be able to fire 48" and be able to have an Exarch for however many points. need suggestions on wargear and abilities.

Pathfinders arn't an aspect so would not get an Exarch.
However the standard unit could be rangers, with a pathfinder leading them.

dayve110 wrote:Pathfinders arn't an aspect so would not get an Exarch.
However the standard unit could be rangers, with a pathfinder leading them.

Doing that would make the 2+ cover bonus of the pathfinders useless, considering we dont make changes to that
As I see it, pathfinders are already a good choice, I always field 5 for sitting in terain on an objective and they do this job VERY well, they force the enemy to assault them or drag flamers away from other targets just to negate their 2+ cover save. I have no problems with them as the currently stand, they are much more usable than MANY of the other eldar units.

dayve110 wrote:

Gorechild wrote:As far as the wraith guard go I think the rules are okay, but I think they might be a little too cheap. depends if we decide on their attacks counting as power weapons, but I think a small point rise wouldn't be unreasonable. What do others think?

Having power weapon attacks would make them too killy in combat. They should have a weakness which would be combat, however T(6) 3+/5++ should help off-set this.
If they get PW then price will go up but as they are proposed i think the points are ok.

I'd say, let one of the Wraithguard be able to take a Powerfist (or maybe either PF or PW). Otherwise I think what dayve110 summarised sounds good.

About the rangers, I agree with what Gorechild said, I don't think Rangers/pathfinders really need any bigger changes.

What if the wraithguard were split into two types? Standard wraithguard like has been decided above, and assault wraithguard that loose the wraithcannon, gain fleet and power-weapon hands (with the option in each round of combat to strike as two power-weapons, or putting hands together to make a combined power-fist attack) . I don't know if being able to mix-and-match the types within one unit would be too powerful, but it could be considered.

As for rangers, I have two suggestions. First is to make all ranger long rifles wound on a 3+ instead of the standard 4+.

Second would be to maybe provide them with a special reserves rule that when they roll to come in, they appear on the table anywhere according to standard "infiltrate" deployment rules and count as being stationary with regards to shooting.

Thoughts?

Right, this is a summary from back on page 12 of the thread. I'm going to add all the new ideas to it to show whats left to discuss:

Army-wide special 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)


HQ
Pheonix Lords- All gain Invulnerable saves. possibility to make their aspect scoring. unique exarch power.

Avatar- Exude a infinite range Stubborn aura. All round stat boost and point increase. make him nightbringer-like. ability to bathe everyone within melee range in fire for S4 hits once per assault phase.

Farseer- Mind War only allow invulnerable saves, not cover saves. Mind War need to become more reliable for at least the first wound. Eldritch Storm changed to become anti-deep striking mechanic, Warlock unit changed to retinue.

Autarchs- allow units entering from reserve to enter from any non-hostile table edge. Roll for reserves in groups of units rather than individual units.


Elite

Fire Dragons- aside from needing to be discouraged from being kamikaze, are fine.

Striking Scorpions- Stealth, infiltrate/ outflank? have not been properly discussed.

Wraithguard moved to troop, squad size 4-8 + warlock, 2 wounds? immune to poison

Banshees- need some way of assaulting after disembarking, have not been properly discussed

Harlequins are left to DE codex to decide



Troops

Rangers- simply have a price drop by a few points

Dire Avengers have not been properly discussed.

Guardians- unit size 5-10 + warlock, heavy weapon platform per 5 guardians or 2 special weapons per 5 guardians.


Fast Attack

Swooping Hawks- No f**king clue, suggestions include: support unit with variety of grenades to reduce cover saves ect, lots of different opinions on weapons

Warp Spiders- Very small squads, Deathspinners change to Template (blast or flame?) or assault 2? rending, 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, able to choose when entering from reserve.


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, same special rules as wraithguard.

* War Walker- move to FA, 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.

Vehicle proposals

* Vehicle upgrade which allow a vehicle to fire an additional normal weapon, Assault ramp? Squadrons of small vyper-like open topped transports.




Anything I've missed? feel free to copy/paste and add anything else

Wraithguard with Power weapons or even power-fists? And give them an additional attack? I'm sorry, but please don't turn Wraithguard into slightly modified Terminators.

Eldar are all about specialization, no Eldar unit is good at everything. This unit is a slow moving wall that fires miniature black holes at anything that gets close to them, capable of killing anything in a single volley. They aren't a CC unit and shouldn't become one.

Drop their attacks back to 1 and don't give them any power weapons please.

In terms of the increased survivability, you need to take into account what happens when they get fortuned. Having a squad of T6, 2W, 3+/5++ re-roll-able would be awesome, but, unfortunately, a bit OP. I mean, it would take an average of 162 bolter shots from a BS4 model to kill a single one of these guys (with fortune). I know they're supposed to be survivable, but that seems a bit much.

@Grakmar- I see where your coming from regarding the CC stuff and I'm not going to disagree. Regarding the survivability, we are trying to remove the Eldars dependance on Farseers to make a survivable army, this allows the HQ and every other FOC slot to be more varied and therefore interesting and fun to play.

As to your 162 bolter shots comment, its a matter of using the right tools for the job, nobody would ever fire bolters at them if that was the case.You could complain that you can fire as many bolter shots as you like and not kill a wraithlord, Its because they arent the right weapon to kill them
That said, I thought we were suggesting either W2 or 5++ save, not both of them together?

Gorechild wrote:@Grakmar- I see where your coming from regarding the CC stuff and I'm not going to disagree. Regarding the survivability, we are trying to remove the Eldars dependance on Farseers to make a survivable army, this allows the HQ and every other FOC slot to be more varied and therefore interesting and fun to play.

As to your 162 bolter shots comment, its a matter of using the right tools for the job, nobody would ever fire bolters at them if that was the case.You could complain that you can fire as many bolter shots as you like and not kill a wraithlord, Its because they arent the right weapon to kill them
That said, I thought we were suggesting either W2 or 5++ save, not both of them together?

Good point about using the right tool for the job. But, I personally feel that troop choices (outside of a transport) should be able to be handled effectively with massed small arms fire. A full Iyanden army would mean that most of your opponents weapons are completely worthless.

I like the idea of not relying on Farseers, but you need to take into account what happens when the two do team up. Maybe we could give them an additional rule about them not being able to be boosted by Farseer powers. Make it fluffy by saying something about them existing on a different plane of consciousness, so they see things differently and can't take advantage of Fortune. Work it in with the wraithsight rule?

Nothing is OP - it is the cost that finally determines that.

Wraithguard example 1:

WS4 BS4 S5 I4 A1 T6 W1 Sv 3+ 1 12" A1 Wraithcannon

Wraithguard example 2:
WS4 BS4 S5 I4 A2 T5 W2 Sv 3+(5+) 18" A2 Wraithcannon
Powerweapon in HTH

So let's cost them

Say # 1 we think would be 25 each and # 2 is 75 each

But let's say we cost them this way.

#1 cost 35 each #2 cost 50 each

In the first set, I would take the wraithlord of today for 25 points over the "uber" wraithguard at 75 each. But looking at the second set, give me the 50 pointers every time and other races will be howling that I have a super "Obliterator" for less cost with an arguably much better weapon.

Get the fluff right and then cost the unit correctly and it won't be OP.

Grakmar wrote:Wraithguard with Power weapons or even power-fists? And give them an additional attack? I'm sorry, but please don't turn Wraithguard into slightly modified Terminators.

Eldar are all about specialization, no Eldar unit is good at everything. This unit is a slow moving wall that fires miniature black holes at anything that gets close to them, capable of killing anything in a single volley. They aren't a CC unit and shouldn't become one.

Drop their attacks back to 1 and don't give them any power weapons please.

In terms of the increased survivability, you need to take into account what happens when they get fortuned. Having a squad of T6, 2W, 3+/5++ re-roll-able would be awesome, but, unfortunately, a bit OP. I mean, it would take an average of 162 bolter shots from a BS4 model to kill a single one of these guys (with fortune). I know they're supposed to be survivable, but that seems a bit much.

I did some math, PW seems OP. powerfists could be better or worse depending on the enemy initiative. 2 attacks however, makes then a suitable threat in combat, but no match for a dedicated combat unit. I think i'd be happy with 2 attacks and I:2... I can't fathom why they are I:4 when they are essentially blind and see the world in very, very odd way. Having an enemy rush up in your face and hit you with things is only going to make things worse. I wouldn't mind a WS drop to 3 either.

And no... you do not need to take Fortune into account. Do BA termies have an increased base cost because they could get FNP and FC?
Hell, why not up all the Eldar points costs? After all, they could ALL get fortuned? or guided? Lets lower the enemy price costs aswell because they can all get doomed.
The points for fortune should solely be within the cost of the Farseer. No unit in the Eldar list should have its stats/points/options limited because another unit could do something to improve them when other armies do not take things like this into account.

Gorechild wrote:That said, I thought we were suggesting either W2 or 5++ save, not both of them together?

The last version i posted had W:2 but you had to buy the 5++ seperatly.
The post before that also had them as T:4(6) to make them vulnerable to missiles/battlecannons etc but still able to shrug off normal fire.
I don't think anyone mentionf the 4(6) bit but i personally like the idea.

Grakmar wrote:Good point about using the right tool for the job. But, I personally feel that troop choices (outside of a transport) should be able to be handled effectively with massed small arms fire. A full Iyanden army would mean that most of your opponents weapons are completely worthless.

I like the idea of not relying on Farseers, but you need to take into account what happens when the two do team up. Maybe we could give them an additional rule about them not being able to be boosted by Farseer powers. Make it fluffy by saying something about them existing on a different plane of consciousness, so they see things differently and can't take advantage of Fortune. Work it in with the wraithsight rule?

Then i suggest you go speak to mister Tervigon, Deathwing armies, large IG blobed platoons, etc. Not all troops are able to be cut down swiftly with small arms fire, And worthless is not quite true as they can still wound the WG. At least were not running cheap DT spam and cancelling out any weapons S:4 or lower until those transports are cracked. Remember the humble lasgun can still kill a WG model.

Not relying on a Farseer would be great i'll admit, but i'd proberly still take one most of the time... And no, as mentioned before, we do not need to take that into account.

-----

Not meaning to sound harsh, it just comes out like that sometimes If you feel the need, you may have a cookie as compensation. But there is no guarantee on the quality of said cookie after delivery.

Rangers: Having the unit be lead by a Pathfinder could have the Pathfinder confer ignore difficult terrain and master stealth. The Eldar Long Rifle is already better than a standard Sniper Rifle, but a fix could be a homogenization that it will, on any roll of 6, be treated as AP1. Other than that, I don't see a need to overly improve them more than touch on their cost.

Guardians: Just saying, Guardians don't have warfare as their life-style the way aspect warriors do, so it is perfectly fine for Guardians to be non-dedicated troops. Eldar as a race shouldn't have too much problem distributing fancy gear to their troops, contrary to the problems the Empire have, although the ritualistic gear (read: Exarch gear) should be limited. After all, if you've got a unit consisting of artists, artisans, engineers and scientists - well, they're not going to be the best combat troops but they can handle a diverse amount of situations.
In other words, I don't see a problem with having a troop choice that can mix CCWs with heavy weapons and fancy tech.

Wraithguards: How about Bonesingers instead of Warlocks? Same gear as Warlocks, with added Ghosthelm. Statline same, although LD10. (Spiritseers are scrapped)
March of the Dead - Psychic power, always active - While the Bonesinger is alive, any Eldar Wraith unit within 12" of the Bonesinger is treated as having fleet, move through cover and will automatically pass their wraithsight test.
Song of Bone - Psychic power, usable at start of movement phase - One Wraithguard which have fallen as casualty at any point since the Eldar player's last movement phase is salvaged and repaired. (Alternatively, passive and grants feel no pain, but that felt too apothecary-esque)

Mahtamori wrote:Rangers: Having the unit be lead by a Pathfinder could have the Pathfinder confer ignore difficult terrain and master stealth. The Eldar Long Rifle is already better than a standard Sniper Rifle, but a fix could be a homogenization that it will, on any roll of 6, be treated as AP1. Other than that, I don't see a need to overly improve them more than touch on their cost.

Guardians: Just saying, Guardians don't have warfare as their life-style the way aspect warriors do, so it is perfectly fine for Guardians to be non-dedicated troops. Eldar as a race shouldn't have too much problem distributing fancy gear to their troops, contrary to the problems the Empire have, although the ritualistic gear (read: Exarch gear) should be limited. After all, if you've got a unit consisting of artists, artisans, engineers and scientists - well, they're not going to be the best combat troops but they can handle a diverse amount of situations.
In other words, I don't see a problem with having a troop choice that can mix CCWs with heavy weapons and fancy tech.

Wraithguards: How about Bonesingers instead of Warlocks? Same gear as Warlocks, with added Ghosthelm. Statline same, although LD10. (Spiritseers are scrapped)
March of the Dead - Psychic power, always active - While the Bonesinger is alive, any Eldar Wraith unit within 12" of the Bonesinger is treated as having fleet, move through cover and will automatically pass their wraithsight test.
Song of Bone - Psychic power, usable at start of movement phase - One Wraithguard which have fallen as casualty at any point since the Eldar player's last movement phase is salvaged and repaired. (Alternatively, passive and grants feel no pain, but that felt too apothecary-esque)

Bonesingers - a topic of discussion before, to me are a kind of combination of apothecary and techmarine. I would rather see them as an IC that grants FNP to wraithguard and wraithlord only (ouch) through a psychic power or repair a vehicle weapon or mobility. Making it an IC and then positioning it as a HQ or Elite really puts pressure on your FoC choices so even though a FNP wraithlord or lords sounds nasty, you can point out you are fielding a bonesinger instead of a unit of fire dragons or a second farseer.

Keep the passive range short like 6" and make it require a successful psyk test to be up for a full turn much like Fortune. Also make it so that it is one or the other not both abilities each turn with out paying a hefty point cost to cast both.

This is a bit of speculation, but...

Taken from the below thread we seem to have a new Eldar aspect warrior incoming with the new IA11 (and the model is H.O.T) as well as smaller tanks with a new design.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/319249.page

The relevant question is whether these would serve a place in the standard army codex in the future.

Yes, this is me kicking the thread a little

They are indeed H.A.W.T. I read on that thread (hey, that was a rhyme!) that they are armed with mini-prisms that can help fire prisms, and they also have jetpacks. Sounds nice!

dayve110 wrote:

Gorechild wrote:That said, I thought we were suggesting either W2 or 5++ save, not both of them together?

The last version i posted had W:2 but you had to buy the 5++ seperatly.
The post before that also had them as T:4(6) to make them vulnerable to missiles/battlecannons etc but still able to shrug off normal fire.
I don't think anyone mentionf the 4(6) bit but i personally like the idea.

With W1 I don't see much difference between T6 and T4(6), but I wouldnt agree with Being able to ID them because of double strength.

Thats just personal preference though

I just dont really like instant death but if the wraithguard have an invuln save doesn't that pretty much negate Instant death?

Gorechild wrote:

dayve110 wrote:

Gorechild wrote:That said, I thought we were suggesting either W2 or 5++ save, not both of them together?

The last version i posted had W:2 but you had to buy the 5++ seperatly.
The post before that also had them as T:4(6) to make them vulnerable to missiles/battlecannons etc but still able to shrug off normal fire.
I don't think anyone mentionf the 4(6) bit but i personally like the idea.

With W1 I don't see much difference between T6 and T4(6), but I wouldnt agree with Being able to ID them because of double strength.

Thats just personal preference though

The difference is that we're talking about an upgrade to give them FnP. In that case, there is a big difference between T4(6) and T6 in that S8+ would ignore the FnP save.

Punisher91090 wrote:I just dont really like instant death but if the wraithguard have an invuln save doesn't that pretty much negate Instant death?

Huh? I don't know if I understand your question. A successful invul save would prevent the model from dying, as would an armor save or cover save. If I model only has 1 wound, the only change for it being subject to ID is that it wouldn't get FnP.

Thats what i was saying you can save an instadeath attack with an invuln save. I didn't see anything from before abot FnP.

Punisher91090 wrote:Thats what i was saying you can save an instadeath attack with an invuln save. I didn't see anything from before abot FnP.

Hmmm.... I thought FnP had come up before as a Warlock power specifically for Wraithguard. Maybe I'm remembering something else.

But, yeah, if they have 1W and do not have FnP, there's no reason to have T4(6) except for fluffy reasons.

I play exclusively wraithguard.

Wraithguard lists are probably the only eldar list that are light on the elite slot, so making a bonesinger an elite is a boon to a wraith wall player. The build will be 3x wraithguard squad, 3x bonesingers, 3x wraithlords.

Wraithguard, as they are now, have two weaknesses - they fold in CC to terminators and rending opponents, and they have a 12" gun.

In the future, with DE having so much poison, they will have more trouble because nids and DE will ignore T6.

Wraithguard have always been the eldar's toughest infantry, that is their aspect, resilience. They have a fearsome weapon, but it shouldn't be amazingly badass - just really good. So, fix the weapon, buff their resilience, and cost them appropriately.

Fixing the weapon - Current profile, but 18"

Buffing resilience - as long as you don't allow for customization (customization is very un-eldary, except for the exarchs), wound allocation isn't a big deal. FNP is tossed around too much, but is, ironically, fairly appropriate here. Some sort of resurrection or we'll be back rule is OTT, and overly-complicated.

An invulnerable save is overpowered. Period. Give these guys a 5+, or worse, a 4+ invuln, and they will last forever in close combat, because of fortune. You shouldn't take fortune into account when pricing a unit, but you should take fortune into account when writing the rules for units, because if you don't, you leave the door open to make things obscenely overpowered. Its like saying "Lets give guardians lots and lots of firepower - its ok, its balanced because their BS is only 3" - except guide removes that problem. Fortune has to be taken into account. No invuln saves for wraithguard.

My proposals:
WS/BS:4 S/T:6 W2 I3 A2 Ld10 3+

or

WS/BS4 S/T6 W1 I3 A2 Ld10 2+

These are profiles that operate within the current schema of the wraithguard - fairly mobile, tough, nasty weapons, crap in CC (even with A2, terminators mop the floor)

Alternatively, we could give them more buffs, but add downsides, such as:

WS/BS4 S/T6 W2 I1 A2 Ld10 2+, slow and purposeful, rapidfire 18" weapons

One way to balance wraithguard is to require a HQ choice to move them from elite to troops. With only two choices available, I know that I would be hard pressed to take the HQ choice and a farseer, because i always want to take the avatar. If GW wanted to go semi-marine with the eldar HQ choices, I think that would be ok.

Take this profile:

Wraithguard (Elite)
WS/BS4 S/T6 W2 I2 A2 Ld10 2+

special rules:
slow and purposeful
wraithsight
fearless
construct: As nonliving organisms made entirely of wraithbone, wraith constructs do not have weak points, organs, or vulnerabilities. "poison" weapons, or weapons which wound on a fixed value (such as eldar long rifles, but not the 'rending' special rule), wound constructs on a roll of 6+.

Wraithcannon:
R18" SX Ap2 Rapidfire

Squad:
4 wraithguard and 1 warlock with the spiritseer upgrade, for 151 points. The warlock may take any normal additional options from the warlock entry on P.XX
up to 4 additional wraithguard may be purchased for 30 points per model.

Iyanna:

Other rules, but the important one:
All wraith constructs may ignore the "wraithsight" special rule, as long as Iyanna is alive.
All wraithguard units which number 8 wraithguard at the start of the game are troops choices.


So, with that profile and those rules, why 30 points per model? For the following reasons. The attacks are a cosmetic buff, as they've never been fearsome in close combat. The +1 S is also cosmetic. Now wounds marines on 2s, but still not a power weapon, so also not a big deal. (on the charge, 24 attacks, 12 hits, 10 wounds, 3 or 4 dead marines, for a 271 point unit - ehh. Even fewer dead marines when they go up against terminators, and good lord, genestealers would still rip the unit apart). Rapidfire on the weapons is a buff, but not much of one. It makes anyone within 12" extra deadsies, but that was sort of true before. It allows 1 shot to 18" which is a buff, obviously, but not that big of one. 2+ armor is a buff, but again, they didn't fear shooting in the first place. They laugh at shooting. It still gets ignored by what killed them before - power weapons in close combat (or rending in CC). Basically, under this schema, a 2+ makes up for the almost-certain loss of a farseer in the HQ slot. The only really important buff they get with these rules is +1 wound. 35 ppm is overpriced in the current codex. I feel like a 5ppm decrease and a decent buff is ok.

A full wraithguard troop still costs 271 points before a power for the warlock, and it has a 200+ point surcharge (for iyanna). If we want to make it even harder to make them effective, put them back up to 10 models per troop unit, and make them cost 331 points per troop.

Special characters used to lean an army towards a certain craftworld? Iyanna towards Iyanden, Yriel towards Alaitoc/Corsair, Eldrad towards Ulthwé, etc. Avatar could possibly make it more Biel-Tan. That leaves Samm-Hain.
It's not in fashion atm, but this could solve the "problem" with how Eldrad is the leader of the Saim-Hann.

Regarding Wraiths: 3+/5++ save for both kinds?

Fortune could be altered to say "the unit is granted 3+ invulnerable save yada yada" or something if it becomes a too great factor in it. Naturally, this would drastically alter it's application, heavily favouring fortuning large groups such as Guardians or targets that would normally be left exposed to their typical fire such as War Walkers or Wraithlords. Just consider this a hint that nothing is sacred, really.

Sounds like a throw back to the old craftworlds codex. It definitely would make things more interesting IMO.

Yriel is a Iyanden character, making him essential to make a Alaitoc list is dumb. Sorry for being so blunt, but dont steal a vital already established character from one craftword and give it to another, make a new one!

On another note, I really like the W1 T4(6) 3+ no Inv FNP wraithguard. going by that logic, wraithlords would be the same but T6(8) W3, but the double strength ID rule wouldnt negate FNP in this case, it would be a matter of lascannons and melta's. Coupled with an 5++ save this mmight be a little much IMO though.

I claim brainfart on Yriel being Alaitoc!

Mahtamori wrote:I claim brainfart on Yriel being Alaitoc!

Seconded!

Gorechild wrote: wraithlords would be the same but T6(8) W3, but the double strength ID rule wouldnt negate FNP in this case, it would be a matter of lascannons and melta's. Coupled with an 5++ save this mmight be a little much IMO though.

What do you mean here? There is no reason to give it T6(8), since there is no weapons with could instant kill it anyway. No weapon have Strength 12, which is required for that.

Well I think it would seem odd for one unit to be T4(6) and then practically the same unit but bigger to just be T8. Although it wouldn't make any real difference in play, it could be part of the wraithbone rule that it grants +2 toughness maybe? I just think it would look better if it was consistant, even if it makes no difference.

Bah! Waste of ink.

So is the fact that Zoanthropes have 5+ armour, but thats still included in their profile

Anyway, Does anybody have anything else Wraithguard related that needs re-thinking??

Gorechild wrote:So is the fact that Zoanthropes have 5+ armour, but thats still included in their profile

Why is that a waste of ink? Armor saves tend to matter, and not everything is AP5 or better...

I am good on the Wraiths and stuff I vote we move on to another unit. Anyone have suggestions? if not I vote swooping hawks.

I think the current setup of the resilience of wraithbone is fine. Really, I feel like T6 W2 for 'guard is good, and T8 W4 for lords is good. No need to get crazy for the wounding or denying FNP.

Swooping hawks - we should start with their role - what should they be doing on the table? what should they not be doing? Whose toes can they step on? What should be their weaknesses? Why does their phoenix lord suck so much?

Gwyidion wrote:I think the current setup of the resilience of wraithbone is fine. Really, I feel like T6 W2 for 'guard is good, and T8 W4 for lords is good. No need to get crazy for the wounding or denying FNP.

Swooping hawks - we should start with their role - what should they be doing on the table? what should they not be doing? Whose toes can they step on? What should be their weaknesses? Why does their phoenix lord suck so much?

You know what, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Hawks are fine as-is. They're highly mobile, can deep strike, and have a ton of shots up to 24". It's the current meta-game that really screws them as they lack a way to deal with a mech army. But, I've found they handle foot-slogging horde armies ridiculously well. So, I say leave them as they currently are, and they just won't get used until the meta-game changes. Maybe with 6th edition. There's nothing wrong with having a unit or two in a codex to fit in a hole no one currently has. You never know when it may open up.

If you really want to upgrade them, I'd just say give them the ability to always move 6" during the assault phase.

As for Baharoth (sp?), he was awesome in the old codex. He was fairly cheap (all the Phoenix Lords were) and owned in CC. I felt he was the best PL and usually took him. Then they took away his ability to gain an additional attack on a hit, but didn't adjust his points to reflect that he's now the worst PL rather than the best.

All good questions I really dont see them as a fast attack unit I see them more as an elite's choice or even a troop choice that can jump. I see fast attack as being things like the shining spears and guardian jet bikes and vypers. I feel that they need a 3+ save because they are deep striking, you dont want to deepstrike and then get destroyed on the same turn. I dont see a problem with thier weapons. Any other better ideas?

I'm going to not go out on a limb and say that you're wrong, Grak. And you're wrong too Punisher. Hawks have severe problems.

They are, in essence, a joke. Their weapons require the presence of a doomseer to be even marginally effective, their blast template is gimmicky, their durability is poor, and their one good aspect - their haywire grenades - is underpowered and requires them to close to assault range to use. Should they succeed in actually destroying a vehicle, they will die in the subsequent turn.

21 pts for a fleet jump infantry unit with bad weapons, which sucks in assault, and is useful against a small subset of armies, is broken on the bad side. They need big fixes.

I don't see them as troop choices. Dire Avengers are the only aspect warrior which have that property, and they are special in that regard.

Elite isn't a good place to put them either. That slot already has dragons, banshees, harlequins, and scorpions (and none of those are going anywhere else)... hawks won't be able to compete (hell, hardly anything can compete with dragons).

Fast attack fits them.

Proposed changes:

Normal aspect warrior profile, whatever that turns out to be, but right now, its

WS/BS4 S/T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9

Give them a 4+ save, since they are a "light" aspect

Turboboost
Fleet
Hit and Run - as BRB
Intercept - the hawks ignore cover saves granted to vehicles for moving fast or flat out. The hawks never require worse than a 4+ to hit any vehicle, regardless of movement speed or comparative weaponskill. In an assault phase in which they assaulted a vehicle, the swooping may always choose to make a hit-and-run move, even if they successfully destroyed the vehicle.

wargear:

Swooping Hawk Wings: Makes them Jump Infantry. Confers a permanent 4+ cover save.
Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack: Hawks have frag, plasma, krak, haywire, and tanglefoot grenades
haywire - 2-4 glance, 5/6 pen.
Tanglefoot - the unit hit moves as though in difficult and dangerous terrain
krak - S7 (better than haywire against AV10)

Swooping Hawk Lasblaster:
S4 AP5 R24" Assault 2

Exarch:
Wargear:
Sunrifle:
S4 AP5 R24" Assault 6
Hawk's Talon:
A set of gloves with long, curved powerblades inset in the wrists, with inbuilt-lasblasters, with profile:
S4 Ap5 R24" Assault4,
the exarch also counts as having two close combat weapons and strikes with a power weapon (continues the long theme of exarchs simply using two of whatever the squad uses - DAs with the catapults, banshees with the mirror blades, warp spiders, etc)

Special rules:
Master of the skies: On the turn in which they arrive from deepstrike, after the first model is placed and deepstrike is successful (i.e., a mishap is not triggered) the swooping hawk squad may be placed around the exarch in any configuration which satisfies normal unit coherency, rather than a series of concentric circles. In addition, the hawk's cover save is improved to 3+ during the following opponent's turn.
Grenadier - the exarch may use his normal number of attacks when attacking with grenades, rather than a single attack, and counts as having two close combat weapons when he elects to use his grenades to attack. In addition, if in assault with an opponents vehicle, and the opponent elects to move that vehicle away from the squad in their movement phase, the exarch may make a single additional attack.

Summary:

They still aren't tough. They aren't heavy bolter bait, with their 4+ save, and the exarch's DS rule allows them to not get murdered by blasts on arrival from DS. They are, essentially, fire support and vehicle hunters. Their storm-bolter equivalents are good, but not amazing. Their really good stuff comes in against vehicles. They hit everything on no worse than a 4+, as they are now, but, their haywires are better (equiv S10 vs AV14), and critically, they can hit-and-run away from an exploded vehicle. That is huge. Previously, if you got them to assault a LR, they just died the turn after to reprisals. Now, they can get up to 18" away. In addition, the exarch is a beast against vehicles, with his full # of attacks grenades.

Fire support, anti any-vehicle, hard to get ahold of.

Or, respectively, storm bolters, buffed haywires, turbo and HNR.

In my mind, the costs should go (approx):
Guardians: 8ppm
DAs: 12ppm
Aspect warriors: 14ppm
Special aspect warriors/harlequins:18ppm (warp spiders, hawks, harlies,dragons)
Heavy aspect warriors: 25 ppts (reapers, spears)

It's a bit... wordy.

I'd boil it down to, well
Turboboost: sounds odd on a jump infantry, how about a limited range deep-strike re-deployment? Maybe tie it to Master of the Skies?
Krak Grenade: there are more units suffering from Haywire Grenades being iffy. How about just improving Haywire Grenades? Maybe they should score a hit with a -1 penetration modifier on a roll of 2+? Just to eliminate vehicles exploding in their face.
Master of the Skies: "Swooping Hawks deep striking is a rapid, but controlled, descent. When deep striking, the deviation from the chosen point is merely 1D6" (this allows better pin-point deep striking and makes it less confusing)

As for the Grenades, I really do think they should be a bonus, not the entire focus of the unit.

Hawk's Talon that's both the equivalent of a dual-deathspinner and powerblades might be a bit expensive.

In general I think lasing technology is a bit primitive for the Eldar race, some sort of prism technology or watered-down plasma feels more Eldar. That's fluff though, as far as the actual unit goes "lasblaster" is fetched directly from the IG codex and the actual name need to have a make over.

I like what you've done there. Giving them some survivability after assaulting a vehicle rather than being suicide troops is nice. Increasing the Str on their gun would definitely make them more useful as a Dire Avenger alternative. The Master of the Skies deployment rule is badly needed. I hate the new rules for deep strike because you usually have to spend that first turn running just to space them out. I don't know what was wrong with the old deep strike rules using the large blast marker.

But, if you're dropping them to 18 pts, I don't think you can give them a permanent cover save.

I'd also reduce the number of grenades they have. Drop the frag (this is identical to plasma, right?) and tanglefoot to simplify things.

Also, tune back Grenadier a bit. Perhaps just: "The exarch may use his normal number of attacks when attacking with grenades, rather than a single attack." This still gives him 3 grenade attacks against a tank, 5 seems a bit overkill.

I assume both of the "Special rules" are exarch powers?

Now that you mention it hawks are bad. I like both your ideas especially the 1D6 deepstrike thing that seems pretty good. As far as their weapons go I like the S4 Ap5 But lets not give them too much range maybe 18". As for the haywire grenades i also think Haywire grenades should be fixed because they are iffy. I like the turbo boost idea that way they can jump across the field thus living up to the fast attack name.

I propose that upon deepstriking they get a T3(4) until thier next turn or a 2+ cover save until thier next turn.

Punisher91090 wrote:Now that you mention it hawks are bad. I like both your ideas especially the 1D6 deepstrike thing that seems pretty good. As far as their weapons go I like the S4 Ap5 But lets not give them too much range maybe 18". As for the haywire grenades i also think Haywire grenades should be fixed because they are iffy. I like the turbo boost idea that way they can jump across the field thus living up to the fast attack name.

I propose that upon deepstriking they get a T3(4) until thier next turn or a 2+ cover save until thier next turn.

They currently have 24" range. That and jump+fleet are their only redeeming qualities.

In no particular order:
It is better to be overly wordy and specific than terse and vague, especially in rules.

Turboboost is a new thing for a non-bike unit, but it isn't hard to extend it to jump infantry. It fits in with their speed, and doesn't require more deep strike resolution than before, which keeps the game quick. Its simple and has a good history.

The important aspect of Master of the Skies is the deployment of the models on the table. As it stands, deepstrike is blast-bait. A single small blast can hit almost everyone in the unit. One plasma cannon is a dead hawks squad. From a game balance perspective, allowing them to deepstrike in normal unit coherency allows them to withstand the inevitable shooting that deepstriking into a forward position brings. It is also fluffy because these guys aren't teleporting, they're flying in, attacking in the exact method they spend all of their time training to do. Deepstriking isn't an alternative deployment option for the hawks, its their main method, its what they do - fly in. They should be insanely good at it, hence, they can deepstrike in a normal unit coherency formation. If their rules allowed 1d6 scatter, i would still never ever deepstrike them.

Adding in tanglefoot, krak, and plasma grenades is really just to emphasize their grenade focus. They really are/were the grenadiers of the codex. The krak/plasma/tanglefoot grenades won't see a lot of use, but it is a good solidifier of their role.

The 4+ permacover can probably go. Turboboost is good enough for that.

The special rules below the exarch entry are indeed exarch powers. The squad powers are up above. I should also have made the exarch's grenadier rule a little more clear. He gets 2 base, 1 for charging, and 1 for 2ccw, so 4 grenade attacks in CC with a vehicle. His "additional attack" comes in the opponent's movement phase when the opponent moves the vehicle away. It is a bonus for using the hawks in a way which precludes them being killed by a 2nd opponent unit. or:

If you assault a vehicle near many opponent units, your hawks will simply get shot/assaulted to bits, to ensure the vehicle doesn't suffer another round vs. the hawks. If instead you are a proper eldar general and isolate/manipulate the enemy to exposing the vehicle in question, the only option for the opponent is to move the vehicle away from the hawks, in which case the exarch gets that last parting shot.

The exarch is going to cost 30 points, (18+12), not counting the powers or the wargear. He could easily total above 60 points, so i don't think the grenades are too OP, in that light. Especially since if you take a whole squad, you're looking at 162 points for 9 hawks, plus 30+powers+wargear for the exarch. Lets say 15/15 for the powers and 10/20 for the wargear. Master of the skies is good, but lets say i don't want to deepstrike my squad. Don't need it. Grenadier is the whole point of taking an exarch, really, so i buy that. I want to keep it cheap and I'm going to rely on my skill to never get the hawks into CC with an opposing infantry unit, so i go with the sunrifle, at 10 pts. My full squad is 217 points. (162 + 30 + 15 + 10) It has the following:
10 T3 4+ Jump, fleet, models.
Fleet, turboboost, and hit and run
5+ pen haywire grenades, and intercept
and has 24 S4 ap5 BS4 (basically, exarch has bs5) shots at 24" (boils down to 18 hits, 9 wounds, 3 dead marines per shooting phase)

Thats a good unit. Highly mobile, pretty lethal against vehicles, annoying but not crippling against marines. I would take it, but not spam it.

Edit: I suppose I should note, that with the squad configuration above, the average cost per model of the unit is above 21 points, which is, from a cost/model perspective, the same as giving the current hawk unit the exarch and upgrades for free, except that now the exarch and upgrades are better, and the squad is more lethal. Max price of a squad with this schema is 162+30+15+15+20, or 242 points.

Also: This is just one possible target for the swooping hawks to hit. If we want to go another direction (like say, light infantry killers) thats an entirely valid way to go, we should just make them really good at it. As it stands, S3 Ap5 means squat when everyone and their brother gets 4+ cover.

Could word it a bit simpler, though, and use already present mechanics. "The Swooping Hawks may consolidate 2" after arriving from deep striking." or something similar.

Light infantry killer is easy. S4 Ap5 Assault 2 on BS4 or BS5 and have them ignore cover (maybe through exarch power). It's not very effective against MEQ as I showed a few pages earlier.

I love Gwyidion's idea's they make the hawks so much more appealing, they make me want to actually use them and not just buy them to paint.

Straying from Hawks: how about Vypers remade to Jetbikes? They will gain increased fire power when moving 12" (there's two guys on it, so they'd be able to fire two weapons), gain 6" JSJ move, but will be vulnerable to melee and their profile will be more vulnerable to small-arms fire. Say 25 points base, all in squad can upgrade under-slung to cannon for +5, all in squad must buy one each rear-mounted for 5/10/10/15/15 (cannon/scatter/star/EML/lance) (extra-discount for the vulnerable frame and high base cost).
Heavy Guardian Jetbikes in other words. Gives a bit room for War Walkers in Fast Attack

With the exception of tanglefoot grenades, I think Gwyidion has put forward by FAR the best, and the only version of hawks I've actually ever liked

I think the tanglefoot is stepping on Spider's niche, as that was basically what was going to make them individual. Spreading around specalized equiptment with effects like that is just un-specializing (cant think of the real word )the Eldar.

As to Mahtamori's suggestion, I've never understood why one guy driving the vyper flat out would stop the gunner from being able to fire. I understand the shuricat/cannon not being able to fire (I assume being forward firing and right next to the pilot, that it is fired by them?). I'd suggest that regardless of the distance moved, the gunner should be able to shoot, even if it gives them a -1 BS modifier or somthing, seems to make sense to me.

Vyper as GJB - yes. The trade-off is acceptable and gets it off of being just a higher priced war walker that is open topped and fast rather than scouting.

Swooping Hawks - I do like the Gwydion's ideas.
No tanglefoot or it dumps on spiders.
Perhaps keep the current statline for the weapon but improve the ROF to 3. Give it a high ROF but low strength. That keeps it far different from spider weapon but gives it a niche also avoids it getting into an anti-vehicle shooty unit. Maybe even ROF 4. Hmm 40 S3 shots coming out of 10 hawks should be annoying enough.

DAaddict wrote:Vyper as GJB - yes. The trade-off is acceptable and gets it off of being just a higher priced war walker that is open topped and fast rather than scouting.

Would it replace the jetbike with Shuricannon, or just be an upgrade (like the guardian HW platform)? Would it go with the other normal jetbikes?

DAaddict wrote:Swooping Hawks - I do like the Gwydion's ideas.
No tanglefoot or it dumps on spiders.
Perhaps keep the current statline for the weapon but improve the ROF to 3. Give it a high ROF but low strength. That keeps it far different from spider weapon but gives it a niche also avoids it getting into an anti-vehicle shooty unit. Maybe even ROF 4. Hmm 40 S3 shots coming out of 10 hawks should be annoying enough.

I think since the Lasblaster is essentially a weaker Scatter laser, I would either have it at S4 Ap5 Assault2, or S3 Ap5 Assault3. Maybe, only maybe, S4 Ap5 Assault3, but lets not make the Sunrifle to weak compared to the normal weapon.

Gorechild wrote:As to Mahtamori's suggestion, I've never understood why one guy driving the vyper flat out would stop the gunner from being able to fire. I understand the shuricat/cannon not being able to fire (I assume being forward firing and right next to the pilot, that it is fired by them?). I'd suggest that regardless of the distance moved, the gunner should be able to shoot, even if it gives them a -1 BS modifier or somthing, seems to make sense to me.

It does to me too, but I would put in the -1BS if firing while going flat-out.

40 shots is a huge amount, 30 from DA's is frightening, let alone 40. I think the guns would be secondary to their grenading ability, so the assault 2 S4 doesnt bother me, its still not bad.

What about the previously suggested paint grenade style idea? Did we give up on that as being too much like Tau marker lights?

Giving Vypers MSM would be interesting although I see giving them stupidly fast movement as being more their role, MSM wouldnt really prevent that from happening.

I also think 40 shots is way too many for a not horde army I think 30 S4 Ap5 is plenty maybe even 20 shots but certainly not 40 that would just be too good.

1 or 2 shots is standard, 3 is uncommon outside of heavy weapons and any more is exclusive to heavy weapons as far as I know. Even at S3, they would be hugely OP, especially with a Doomseer nearby. I think you went a tad OTT DAaddict

I think they should have S4 weapons to go with the rest of the eldar because as far as I can tell the hawks have THE weakest weapons out of all the eldar and I really feel they would be the odd man out in that situation. A strength boost would be nice even if the profile had to be S4 Ap6 Assault 2 I would be ok with letting my opponent try out that armor save instead of trying to would on 5's. That is just one of the worst feelings playing this game, get a great roll to hit then have to wound on 5's and 6's when shooting on a troop of boyz Waaagh!ing at you. Because without doom from a farseer that rool has slim chances of even doing jack diddly.

@ Saintspirit: No, they'd be their own squad. Guardian Jetbikes would remain troop with every third having their cannon. The Vypers would be 1-3 per squad in fast attack with optional upgrade to cannon for ALL and mandatory heavy weapon for the guy riding shotgun.

Mahtamori wrote:@ Saintspirit: No, they'd be their own squad. Guardian Jetbikes would remain troop with every third having their cannon. The Vypers would be 1-3 per squad in fast attack with optional upgrade to cannon for ALL and mandatory heavy weapon for the guy riding shotgun.

So....Exactly the same as they are now

Yea looking at the codex right now they are pretty much the same.

I think having vypers as part of a GJB squadron could solve several problems:

problem 1 - moving war walkers from HS to FA crowds FA, especially if the FA units get the big upgrades we think they need.

problem 2 - GJBs are a fairly lackluster troop choice, with only moderate toughness for a pretty hefty points cost, and limited offensive power, compared to even Defenders (because of their weapons platform).

problem 3 - Vypers just aren't that great. 10/10/10 OT skimmer is tin-can fragile (can't get more fragile, as a vehicle), and the weapons are expensive.

So, GJB:

WS/BS3 S 3 T 3(4) W1 I4 A1 Ld8 3+

Obviously, this changes to match the regular guardian stat-line, plus 1 T for being on jetbikes.
The question becomes, does being a vyper add only 1 wound, or does it add 1 w and an addition 1 T, or does it confer a 2+ armor save (look at that canopy - not your normal jetbike, in resilience)

Vyper:
WS/BS3 S3 T4 W2 I4 A1 Ld8 2+

All get turbo, JSJ, etc.

squad size is 5-10, may upgrade two bikes to vypers, if the squad numbers 10 bikes, a third bike may be upgraded.

may add a warlock on a bike etc...

Vypers can select a single heavy weapon (standard platform weaps)

This, combined with the upgrade to the standard shuriken cannon, whatever it ends up being, makes the GJB squad rather more fearsome, with S4 shots out to 18 (TL) and heavy weapons.

If GJB are 25ppm and Vypers are +15 points ppm, that makes a full squad 220 points before weapon upgrades.

Points is more iffy - if we're trying to make them a good troops choice for a siam hann CW list, we can't make them too expensive, because such a list will also want to use lots of vehicles.

Also - if we make changed to standard jetbikes, that affects the seer-council.


I really like having vypers as upgrades to GJB squads. Should they also be a standalone unit?

Make Vypers like Attack Bikes in the SM codex. 2 wound bikes with a heavy weapon.

Allow them to be taken in fast attack by themselves, or take a single one as an upgrade to GJB squads.
I think 2 or 3 Vypers in a squad of Jetbikes is over kill, one is enough. You don't want to eliminate the use of a shuriken cannon per 3 members.

The biggest problem with this is their current size. They are considerably bigger than Guardian Jetbikes and it would look somewhat awkward.

Also GJBs are a solid troop choice as they are. They aren't quite as competitive as Dire Avengers or Storm Guardians but they are very effective in small packs with a warlock for capturing objectives and providing a limited anti tank role. however I think the option to add a vyper to the squad would not be a broken addition.


As for Hawks, how does changing thier blasters sound?

sX ap5 assault 2 range 24
Blasters always wound on a 3+.

This gives them a gun which wounds regardless of enemy toughness, which makes them useful against MCs and other tough infantry, and it makes them less dependent on doom... and it makes them less like flying IG vets without special weapons.

Or change Vypers to no longer be open topped.

In my opinion it is over complicating things (although it really isn't complicated ) making a vyper part of a jetbike squad as
you're mixing vehicles and bikes in the same squad. I think jetlocks do a perfectly reasonable job leading GJB's, the jetbike squads just need a point reduction to make them viable. To stop Jetcouncils being even better you just have to make the jetbike upgrade for warlocks and farseers cost more points.

I Like the ideas for the Hawks so far I think they are pretty much done on improvements. As for the jetbikes/vypers I would like to see the option to take a vyper in a GJB squad because the current squad size for vypers is too small and expensive for how flimsy they are. If you can put them with a GJB squad then you can allocate wounds to to the jet bikes. First though to do that we will need to decide new stats for the VYpers and make them into a Jetbike unit not a vehicle.

proposed stats:
Ws3 Bs4 S4 T4 W2 I5 Ld9 sv3+

then keep the wargear profile the same shurikats and heavy wep as usual.

Suggestions about that.

This thread is making me sad.

Not because these aren't great fixes.

But because GW won't incorporate any of these

yea it bumms me out now that I think about.

Well.... none of us know what they consult for rules ideas, but i wouldn't be at all surprised if they at least read dakkadakka or warseer, as they tend to be gamer geeks themselves. Will they copy and paste our rules into the new codex? no, but they might color their thinking a little bit. I don't think this is a worthless exercise at all.

On hawks with a 3+ fixed wound weapon - i think its too good. With a S4 weapon, they are not-bad/decent against T4, brutal to T3, and worse and worse against T5/6. With a 3+ wound weapon, they put 12 wounds on any non-vehicle unit per shooting phase, before saves, at 24". I'd take them just for their anti-MC ability.

I can see an argument for not incorporating vypers into a GJB squad. That being said, I am heavily in favor of making them not-vehicles.

I also feel like 2 wounds isn't enough to represent their resilience. Yeah, its a jetbike with two guardians, but its also much more heavily armored, so i feel like a 2+ armor save is good.

Depending on cost, the heavy weapon could be twin linked.

So, like i had above:
WS/BS/S 3 T3(4), W2 I4 A1, Ld8, 2+

squad size 1-3? 3-5?

Here's a question though. If they aren't vehicles, they can break from shooting, and if they get hit by a lascannon, thats a wound and a deadsies vyper - 33% losses in a 3-bike squad. GJBs have a warlock to combat this problem. What do vypers have?

which is why we are saying let the GJB's be able to take them for extra points.

whaoo. I really like these new hawk.

But there still got the main problems they have now: nearly useless weapon again troop. but completely useless weapon again vehicle. But since they want to assault the vehicle to use their grenade, they can't shoot on the same turn.

EMP grenade are great, but on a small squad, that hardly a kill, even with that new exarque ( I love the grenadier power btw)

I stand by my last opinion to give their weapon the melta property. with a S3 AP5 R24" Assault 1 melta. It means again light vehicle, thats about 50% light hit which is not thats much, and it's about no chance again a landraider, but that can allow them to shoot on the same target, before they assault.

a unit of 6 hawk means 4hit 2damage in the shooting phase, and about the same in the assault phase. They become more consistent, and their shooting phase actually is useful.

Gorechild wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:@ Saintspirit: No, they'd be their own squad. Guardian Jetbikes would remain troop with every third having their cannon. The Vypers would be 1-3 per squad in fast attack with optional upgrade to cannon for ALL and mandatory heavy weapon for the guy riding shotgun.

So....Exactly the same as they are now

Like I wrote, they'd be jetbikes, not vehicles. It's a pretty big difference when it comes to shooting and the expected price (which will be lower). Slightly more glass in the glass cannon and slightly more cannon for your points.

---

They would actually not be crowded in the FA slot since they are fast enough to be different from War Walkers, which is the only thing they compete with conceptually. On the other hand, War Walkers provide more shooting than Vypers could (unless you're silly enough to take shuri-walkers).

The other FA choices are very different.

In either case, we're going to see crowded FOC slots however you look at it. The only natural choice to kill off completely and integrate into a different choice is the artillery guardians.

If Vypers were to be made into jetbikes, they could be T4(5) or T3(5), to represent the better armour when compaired to normal bikes. 3+ armour would be resonable.

Just a though, but were discussing 2 different things at the same time, so would it be best to tie up the loose ends with one of them before going into the second?
As the changes to vypers seem to be more significant I suggest we polish off Gwyidion's Hawk suggestion first, then we can really get stuck into vypers.

Polishing!!! How does this sound as v2.0 of Gwyidioin's rules.

WS/BS4 S/T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld9 Sv4+

SPECIAL RULES:
- Turboboost
- Fleet
- Hit and Run
- Masters of the skies: On the turn in which they arrive from deepstrike, after the first model is placed and deepstrike is successful (i.e., a mishap is not triggered) the swooping hawk squad may be placed in any configuration which satisfies normal unit coherency, rather than a series of concentric circles. In addition, the hawk's cover save is improved to 3+ during the following opponent's turn.

WARGEAR:
- Swooping Hawk Wings: Makes them Jump Infantry.
- Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack: Hawks have plasma, defensive, haywire and (big droppy grenade)
haywire - 2-4 glance, 5/6 pen.
(big droppy grenade) - R: - S: 4 AP: 3, Small blast Barrage (3) (As is now, dropped when the unit uses DS with 1d6 scatter)
- Swooping Hawk Lasblaster:
S4 AP5 R24" Assault 2

EXARCH WARGEAR:
Sunrifle:
S4 AP5 R24" Assault 6, pinning
Hawk's Talon:
S6 Ap3 R24" Assault 3

EXARCH POWERS:
Grenadier - the exarch may use his normal number of attacks when attacking with grenades, rather than a single attack, and counts as having two close combat weapons when he elects to use his grenades to attack. In addition, if the hawks turbo-boost they may make another attack with (big droppy grenade) at any point along their path.
Intercept - The hawks never require worse than a 4+ to hit any vehicle, regardless of movement speed or comparative weaponskill. In an assault phase in which they assaulted a vehicle, the swooping may always choose to make a hit-and-run move, even if they successfully destroyed the vehicle.

Gorechild wrote:40 shots is a huge amount, 30 from DA's is frightening, let alone 40. I think the guns would be secondary to their grenading ability, so the assault 2 S4 doesnt bother me, its still not bad.

What about the previously suggested paint grenade style idea? Did we give up on that as being too much like Tau marker lights?

Giving Vypers MSM would be interesting although I see giving them stupidly fast movement as being more their role, MSM wouldnt really prevent that from happening.

LOL I know ROF 4 is way over the top. My point is I would like them to stay unique and not just be a Dire Avenger with wings and grenades. Also they should not get too close to stomping on Warp Spiders. They need to be unique to keep the eldar way of war with true specialists so don't try to make aspects too general purpose.

Dire Avenger - Meat and potatoes anti-infantry. Can survive but not dominate in HTH
Striking Scorpion - Anti-infantry HTH built to dominate low armored opponents.
Howling Banshees - Anti-infantry HTH built to dominate heavy armored opponents.
Dark Reapers - Long ranged anti-infantry firepower unit.
Fire Dragon - Short ranged anti-mech unit.

Shining Spears - Fast anti-infantry HTH
Warp Spiders- TODAY Fast general purpose short ranged anti-infantry/anti-light AV
Swooping Hawks - TODAY Fast general purpose long ranged anti-infantry/short ranged anti tank.

We have talked through and basically have the top five defined and are comfortable. So it really comes down to defining and making these 3 have a definite role to play. My philosophy is make the fluff fit and then determine the cost. The problem with all three is a muddy role at questionable costs for the return. Today, if you want to kill troops, give me Dire Avengers in a Serpent before I would consider spiders or hawks. If I want to kill tanks, give me dragons in a serpent before I would consider spiders or hawks. So to me the struggle is to make these non-scoring options (can't claim an objective) have reason for me to want to exploit some advantage. Get me some unique abilities at a reasonable cost and they might get played. So even a ROF 4 lasblaster could be fine if the cost does not make them too much of a deal but it also might be enough to make me use a precious fast attack choice to field them instead of vypers or spiders or walkers (if they get moved as we propose).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swooping Hawks -

WS 4 BS5 S3 I5 W1 A1 Ld 9 Sv 4+
Lasblaster, Plasma Grenade, Haywire Grenade, Grenade Pack

Lasblaster: 24" S3 AP5 ROF 3

Plasma Grenade: Defensive Grenade
Haywire Grenade: 1 NE 2-4 Glance 5-6 Pen


Skyleap - Swooping Hawks can forego normal movement and be repositioned using deep strike scatter. (1d6) This can even be done if currently in HTH combat. When a unit is moved via skyleap or deep striking from reserve, you may fire off the grenade pack.
** Replaces skyleap to reserve with mechanic of using deep strike in lieu of regulare jump pack movement.


Grenade Pack Options:

Plasma Grenade: Large Blast Str 4 AP 5 Pinning

Haywire Grenade : Small Blast - If the Pin-hole is over a vehicle, 2nd roll on the haywire grenade result chart. Otherwise one roll if touched by the small blast template.

** Adding Haywire to grenade packs is attempt to make the grenade pack the unique element for them.

So given that this is not a 21 point model, then we have to cost it correctly so it is useable but not a spammed unit.

I'm good with those Hawks is anyone opposed to them? if so speak now if not I say we move to finishing up vypers.

If we are going to keep any form of Skyleap (my particular favourite is the version latest detailed in DAaddict's post), then we really should replace or remove the grenade pack. In fact, that grenade pack is something of an abomination and risk cornering the aspect in an artillery role, and to be frank the aspect don't need it!

Skyleap: DAaddict's version of a relocation power, whether Exarch or squad, is nice. I do think that if you use that from melee you should be forced to make a Hit & Run, however.

Master of the Skies: I'm not really a fan of this one. Troops can shoot the turn they enter, and shooting is where Hawks excel. It is granted that it does make them template-fodder, but it is extremely bad design if you don't make units have a weak point, this for two reasons; one is that it reduces their point cost and the second is that it gives your opponent a fair chance and makes the game more challenging - and it's the latter that is important (and why I hate Space Marine pampering).

Defensive Grenades: Granted that Swooping Hawks have a great potential to be built around grenades, but is it really necessary or even beneficial to their role to have defensive grenades? They're fast enough (and fleet!) to dictate whether they get into close combat on their own initiative and they are also long-ranged far outside a normal unit's charging radius.

Long range gun + Grenades focus: I question whether this combo is sane. You're going to pay for both, and one invalidates the other. Grenadier is a better role for Warp Spiders, whom not only have complementary weapons but also increased durability to handle close range. Having more units with Haywire Grenades, not always the best AT grenades, reduces the focus and necessity of Fire Dragons (whom regardless will be the supreme AT aspect), however this does not necessarily mean that the aspect need to be focused on such equipment.
Some multi-purpose is necessary, particularly in an environment that is on the brink of being completely dominated by vehicles.

Grenade pack: My greatest beef with this wargear is that it doesn't scale. It's the main focus of the aspect and it doesn't matter how many you have, it's best with as few as possible. I know some people want to see Eldar in minimal squads, but personally I think that you shouldn't be punished for maximizing them, contrary you should be punished for minimizing them opting for versatility of several squads over few stronger ones.

Exarch powers in general: I dislike personal exarch powers, and personally think they should be squad-based or you might run into the problem like with Dark Reapers - the exarch is great, but the aspect is dead meat.

So, put simply, my own preferred version is:

Statline: aspect warrior basic statline.
Wargear: Haywire Grenade, Plasma Grenade (offensive), 4+ armour, Wings, Hawk's Talon (24" S5 Ap5 Assault 3)
Special rules: Hit & Run, Jump Infantry, Fleet.
Exarch powers: Intercept (free), Skyleap (purchasable, redeploy through deep strike)
Exarch upgrades: Sun Rifle (ROF increase), Star Rifle (AP increase), Web of Skulls (doubles number of attacks)

Yes, it's a bit bland. No special special, but I don't think it's necessary. Grenades are secondary, the Hawk's Talon is primary (hit GEQ on 3+, kill on 2+). Web of Skulls I gave simply because it's customary to give a melee option, and the unit used to have one!

Baharroth

Standard Phoenix Lord statline.
Special rules: Hit & Run, Jump Infantry, Fleet, Eternal Warrior, Battle Destiny (4+ invulnerable save), Disciples (Swooping Hawks may be added as retinue), Fearless, Intercept, Skyleap
War gear: Cry of the Dead (24" S6 Ap3 Assault 6 Pinning), Haywire Grenades, Plasma Grenades, Destiny Denied (melee weapon, successful saves of any kind must be re-rolled)

P.S. DAaddict, I think you meant Warp Spiders, not Striking Scorpions twice

The problem is that current fluff says that swooping hawks fly above the battle shooting and dropping grenades on people, but there is no mechanism in game for aerial combat. I know you want to simplify the unit, but I really like the idea of flying grenadiers so I'm going to propose a rule that could make the shooting and grenade throwing abilities compatible:

Swooping Hawk Wings- Swooping hawk wings and armor contain advanced anti-grav engines and stabilizers that allow the hawks to shoot accurately while flying. Instead of moving 12" the swooping hawk squad can fly upward, use a token to indicate the position of the squad (the squad is assumed to be directly above the token). While in the air add 12" when measuring any distance to or from the token, this means that the swooping hawks cannot assault or be assaulted and have an effective 12" range on their guns. The squad ignores all terrain and enemy models when moving but is always in LOS; they cannot get cover saves and ignore all cover except for area terrain and special rules. Instead of moving the squad can land, place them in coherency with the token, then remove the token from the table.

Grenade pack- Instead of shooting the swooping hawks can drop grenades on their target. Place a blast marker anywhere the swooping hawks moved over in the movement phase, the blast then scatters d6" and any unit under the blast marker takes a number of hits equal to the number of swooping hawks in the squad.
plasma grenade pack- large blast S4 AP5
haywire grenade pack- small blast 4+ to glance, 6 to penetrate (less likely to hurt tanks because its dropped from the air instead of being strapped to the tank)

Two ideas for Fly-by special rule, both have in common that you may not have moved (they count as heavy weapons):
1: A fly-by attack is executed by moving one Swooping Hawk aspect warrior up to 24", placing one small blast template (plasma discharge) or picking a vehicle (haywire discharge) on an enemy model the aspect warrior moved directly over. After this, move each remaining aspect warrior in a similar manner, executing a similar attack for each one, ensuring the squad remains in coherency.

2: Re-deploy the squad using the rules for Deep Strike, placing a large blast template (plasma discharge) or a small blast template (haywire discharge) on an enemy model.
(I must admit that my mind blanked out a bit on the second option after writing the first one, so I'm not 100% this was what I planned on writing :p)

Key feature: the attack move is treated like a heavy weapon, simplifying the rule slightly to something more familiar

I think both options are good. Really want to get rid of the yo-yo move back into reserve. Leave them on the board.

I think the haywire grenade concept is good and part of what sets apart hawks but also does make them schizophrenic. I also agree one of the bad points of them is that it makes them into pseudo-artillery and any value is with keeping the squad small. I like it but perhaps reduce it to 1 small Plasma Blast per 3 hawks or 1 small haywire blast per 3 hawks. Round up in the case of plasma blast and round down in the case of haywires. That means 10 hawks could drop 4 plasma blasts or 3 haywire. If the 1 per 3 seems too much or too time intensive maybe 1 template per 4 hawks.

Yes I meant Warp Spider the second time in last post.

I like the Fly-by attack (its much simpler and better than my proposal) but I have a suggestion:
potentially 10 blast templates seems like too much, while 1 doesn't scale. 1 per 3 hawks could work but IMO that makes it seem like some hawks have wargear that others don't.
Possibility 4: Move the squad up to 24" in the shooting phase, any units that the hawks fly over are hit a number of times equal to the number of hawks in the squad. If the hawks are dropping plasma grenades they take S4 AP4 pinning, cover ignoring hits, if the squad is dropping haywires the haywires only manage to hit the vehicle on a 4+ if it moved (same as cc if the squad has intercept).

My reasoning: 10 hits= 15 shots (assuming BS4) so this will be less hits than the full squad shooting but they will ignore Tau/Aspect armor and cover the plasma hits may need a buff though. 10 haywires is too many IMO for an attack that doesn't put the hawks in retaliation range so the 4+ reduces that to 5 hits (on average). This also forces the enemy to keep their vehicles moving if hawks are nearby so it can be strategically useful.

@ Punisher- You seem to be in a hurry to get through each unit I though that (seeing as we're on page 24 of the thread) you'd have realised we like rambling about vague ideas some times a lot of good ideas come from it!

I was thinking, (fluff-wise) it would be perfectly reasonable for all swooping hawk shots/grenades to be pinning, being shot from above by something you never knew was gliding above you would be a bit suprising to say the least

For Skyleap another idea could be: Move the exarch up to 36" from his original possition, roll for scatter as if arriving from deep strike. Then center a large blast marker over the exarch and move the rest of the unit so that they are all anywhere under the template (stops them being able to hop all over the board but still makes them VERY fast). In the following shooting phase the Swooping Hawks can fire all their guns or drop grenades on any unit they passed over during their movement phase.

A mitigating factor of a fly-by (or fly-over) attack is that you'll position yourself within charge range and rapid fire range of the enemy most of the time. On a medium infantry, this is not healthy. The impact of this attack needs to be heavy, or it's tactical implementation will be limited to combined-attack or cover-flushing - although with a decent weapon this would instead present a tactical choice, heavy attack or safety.
D3 hits per jump infantry armed with Swooping Hawk pack in squad?

The squad makes a long range flight, passing over the enemy and like the Hawks of myth marks them for death. This attack is treated as a Heavy 1 attack and may only be executed if the squad consist of aspect warrior models with Swooping Hawk Wings. Each model in the squad moves up to 24" in a straight line, passing over the intended target. For each model in the squad armed with a Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack, a non-vehicle enemy unit suffer 1D3 hits at S4 AP4 ignoring cover saves. Enemy vehicles suffer a single attack from a Haywire grenade, as if struck in melee.

Mahtamori wrote: A mitigating factor of a fly-by (or fly-over) attack is that you'll position yourself within charge range and rapid fire range of the enemy most of the time.

Unless your're fighting a horde it wouldn't be too hard to get out of retaiation range with a 36" move. Plus, we dont want them to be fool proof they need some sort of limiting factor. If the weapons are changed to pinning then that might prevent any retaliation.

Mahtamori wrote: The squad makes a long range flight, passing over the enemy and like the Hawks of myth marks them for death. This attack is treated as a Heavy 1 attack and may only be executed if the squad consist of aspect warrior models with Swooping Hawk Wings. Each model in the squad moves up to 24" in a straight line, passing over the intended target. For each model in the squad armed with a Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack, a non-vehicle enemy unit suffer 1D3 hits at S4 AP4 ignoring cover saves. Enemy vehicles suffer a single attack from a Haywire grenade, as if struck in melee.

I like the sound of that. The only problem is, would there ever be any point in not taking it?

It's still a 24" move, you also don't get a move in the movement phase, and you must end your movement on the other side of the target. This means that at best you get about 18" away from your opponent and some opponents will be able to charge that (infantry on a lucky run). Most shooty opponents will be able to do rapid fire at that range. You'll have to kill a significant part of your opponent to make it worth while, and you won't want to use it when attacking someone whom is supported behind them.
Additionally, if it's a bubble-wrapped IG blob, you may not be able to land on the other side at all, effectively wasting the shooting attack.

With the proposed Lasblaster upgrade (I'm thinking of S4 Ap5 Assault 3), this attack will net an average of 2 hits on your opponent, approximately what you will gain from shooting with the rifle. This means it's only beneficial if used against a target with 5+, 6+, or no save in cover or if it is used on a target with exactly 4+ save.

Against a tank you may wish to make the judgement - do I want to sit close to the tank next turn, or do I want to put distance between us? It might be more effective just charging the tank if in range for it.

This is sort of why i suggested a more simplistic, if less flashy, if unprecedented, movement option of turboboost.

24" move, 4+ cover. No attacks, but they have a decent gun, and are hell-on-wheels in assaults vs vehicles (which i really feel they should be, apart from anything else). The idea I have of them is literally flying up to a Tau skimmer or a SM landspeeder and sticking a haywire grenade onto the hull.

edit - supposedly, DE get a 36" move. We could make it a souped up version of turboboost, basically, 24-36" move, no other voluntary actions that turn.

I'm anti deep-strike redeployment because it slows things down, and then what if there's a mishap, do they go back to where they were? in reserve?

Spess Mahreens already opened that can of worms...

The thing we're working with here is not turbo-boost, it's the grenade packs. I'm allergic to them as a concept where the unit is only really good on the turn they arrive.

I hate the yo-yo hawks, and associating it with the exarch means it doesn't scale. Associating it with deepstrike means they keep needing to redeploy in order to use it, and associating it with passing-over movement means they need to compromise themselves positionally to make use of their ability.

there is no mechanism for ranged attacks with grenades except for grenade launchers, or small blasts, which have obvious problems, because resolving 10+ small blasts for a hawk attack will slow the game down.

I don't know the answer.

Deep strike redeployment in lieu of standard jump infantry move allows for the grenade pack use every turn without leaving the board. This however is only necessary if you keep the grenade pack attack. So that is what needs to be determined. I like it as it is a unique item and if done right, sets them apart.

Don't like S4 on their gun at all - then it is just a catapult.
S3 Rof3 with BS 5 is going to make it a disgusting killer already.

How about 1 Lg blast template with S = Hawks/2? So a minimum squad of 5 is dropping S3 while a full strength squad is at S5. Always AP4 and pinning. Allow the alternative haywire attack with anything touching the template being subject to 1 haywire result - under the pin 2 results.

Gwyidion wrote:I hate the yo-yo hawks, and associating it with the exarch means it doesn't scale. Associating it with deepstrike means they keep needing to redeploy in order to use it, and associating it with passing-over movement means they need to compromise themselves positionally to make use of their ability.

there is no mechanism for ranged attacks with grenades except for grenade launchers, or small blasts, which have obvious problems, because resolving 10+ small blasts for a hawk attack will slow the game down.

I don't know the answer.

What about the strength/ap of the attack being dependent on the number of hawks in the squad? Maybe, "Str is equal to the number of models in the squad and the AP is equal to 6 - (number of models/2, round down)."

For a minimum squad, you'd get Str 5, AP 4 or slightly better than current. Would a Str 10, Ap1 large blast per turn be OP for the point cost of a full squad+exarch+skyleap?

Keeping with the spirit of the game, let's avoid equations


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a suggestion which caters more towards grenades/explosives.

Swooping Hawks. 130 points.
WS 4, BS 4, S 3, T 3, W 1, A 1, I 5, LD 9, SV 4+

Type: Jump Infantry
Special rules: Fleet, Aspect Warrior, Hit and Run
Wargear: Lasblaster (24", S 3, AP 5, Assault 3), Plasma Grenades, Haywire Grenades, Grenade Pack, Proximity Charges
Squad: 4 Swooping Hawks aspect warriors, 1 Swooping Hawk Exarch

Options:
* Squad may be joined by up to 5 additional Swooping Hawk aspect warriors for +16 points per model.
* Exarch may exchange his Lasblaster for a Sun Rifle (24", S 3, AP 5, Assault 6 pinning) or a Hawk's Talon (S 4, AP 3, Assault 3) for +15 points
* The Exarch may be given up to two of; Intercept for +5 points and Skyleap for +10 points

Grenade Pack: One shot weapon, on the turn they arrive, just as now.
Proximity Charges: Proximity charges are sophisticated, compact, plasma devices. Prior to battle, the Eldar player may place one marker for each squad of Swooping Hawks under his command anywhere on the table, in addition these devices may be hidden by the Swooping Hawks instead of shooting during the shooting phase. An area as large as a large blast marker centred around the proximity charge is treated as dangerous terrain, but not necessarily difficult terrain, by any enemy units.
Skyleap: Effortlessly striving ever higher, ever faster, the Exarch and his squad reaches for the safety of the sky, only to dive down once more to wreak havoc. During the movement phase, the Exarch and his squad may opt to make a move of up to 24". If they choose to do so, they can not effectively use their weapons and may not shoot during the following shooting phase, but their speed and movement will protect them until their next movement phase, granting a 4+ cover save.

Changes: Well...
* Skyleap changed to turbo-boost
* Proximity charge can be used to make terrain and movement difficult for the enemy, the extra charges are added as an after-thought. Proximity charge can be changed and customized. Maybe a one-time booby-trap that deals a large blast for S5 Ap4 instead, but with 3 of them placed in beginning instead?
* Hit and Run added
* Base cost of squad reflects the one-use equipment, while the individual squad members are much cheaper, making a small squad more expensive than currently, but a large squad less expensive, while having enjoyed a small performance boost

@Mahtamori: Proximity charges seem more like a pathfinder wargear because it requires stealthy infiltration more than speed. I really like the idea of a fly-by attack partly because I really dislike one-shot weapons; I feel like units should be good on the table, not just on the turn they arrive. Here's the changes I would make to your codex entry:
Replace Hit and Run with Skyleap, Intercept and Skilled Flyer (like skilled rider but for jump infantry) as default skills and make Hit and Run an exarch skill. Then change Grenade Pack to d3 S4 AP4 hits per hawk and add it to Skyleap (so every time the unit skyleaps they can make one Grenade Pack attack on a single enemy unit that they passed over) and make the second exarch skill a bonus to grenade pack, something like: Grenade Packs ignore cover and instead of dropping plasma grenades the swooping hawks can drop Haywire Grenade Packs which inflict 1 hit on a 4+ for every hawk in the squad to an enemy vehicle that the squad skyleaped over.
Points per model would have to be increased to 20 IMO (ROF3 lasblasters means the squad now does 50% more damage in shooting as well as the other buffs they're getting) but the base cost of the squad would be decreased to 110. I'm sorry that I'm not compromising on the grenade packs but I really don't like their current form.

@Gorechild I'm totally okay with rambling on but when everyone is saying they have an idea and its the same idea I feel as though we should move on cuz I'm sick of reading everyone's version of the same block of text, because everyone is essentially just paraphrasing what another person has been saying this whole time. feel free to ramble on just don't do it while simulataniously having alsheimers.

Going to go slightly towards a new/old topic. Consider this post to deal with wargear rather than individual units.
Please note, I'll probably have to come back and update this post several times since there's a lot of items to cover.

Yes, I know this is side-tracking from the threads intention, but I want to provide an overview of the army and what makes it tick. By changing weapons in one spot, you may end up having to change weapons somewhere else, and by discussing the weapons you are also discussing the units, but from the viewpoint of a different dimension.

Ranged weapon groups

Shuriken weaponry
Problem: Shuriken Catapults are short ranged weapons, which provides little in terms of survivability and offer little gain in terms of offensive power. Shuriken Catapults are used by Guardian Defenders, Guardian Jetbikes, and Dire Avengers primarily. Secondarily all vehicles have them as defensive weapons where they are usually disregarded in terms of punch. Tertiary Wraithlords may be equipped with them, but the other option, flamer, is nearly always better considering that Wraithlords can use two weapons at most and the shoulder-mounted heavy weapons are always better than Shuriken Catapults.
Option 1: Increase base range to 18".
Analysis 1: This drastically increases each individual Guardian Defender and Guardian Jetbike's expected contribution since it is no longer necessary to position oneself where you risk being in range of close combat. Since a close combat unit can typically cover more than 6" per turn in this edition, it also means that a close combat unit is not negated by Guardians constantly keeping out of range. A new problem arises by Dire Avengers and Guardians suddenly becoming relatively equal in power, where Dire Avengers might once again return to being an expensive and unnecessary upgrade Guardian. Additionally, this means that in many cases, vehicles may use their defensive weapons as well, although a Wraithlord will likely not benefit from it unless strictly being a Swordlord, and even then it is dubious.
Proposition 1: All Shuriken Catapults increase to 18", Dire Avenger Catapults gain rending for increased killing power. Bladestorm is made more expensive. Shuriken Cannons remain a low-cost-low-performance alternative.

Option 2: All shuriken weapons gain rending.
Analysis 2: This option makes Shuriken weapons significantly more dangerous, particularly Shuriken Cannons and Dire Avengers. A full unit of Dire Avengers will be highly likely to do serious damage to a unit of MEQ out in a single phase of shooting if using Bladestorm, outright killing over 3 models average through rending and a further 2 through armour saves. For Guardians the retained short range of the catapults will remain a problem, making the Guardian's survival highly a matter of luck with dice, but the significantly lower cost per Guardian mean that an average kill ratio per point invested compared to Dire Avengers will be close to the same, but with a higher expected result from combined fire. For Wraithlords this mean that there is a real difference between the choice of Shuriken or flamer, although the Shuriken option will still have a hard time competing with heavy weapons whereas the massive hit potential and cover denial of flamers will likely win.
Proposition 2: All Shuriken weapons gain rending. Dire Avengers Bladestorm is made more expensive. Shuriken Cannons have their points adjusted to be equal to Scatter Lasers.

Spinner weaponry.
Problem: In all cases of Spinner weaponry, they suffer from a low yield expectancy due to having no armour piercing. The high strength does mean that they have a real application against vehicles, but again the armour piercing characteristic present a problem with destructive power, often resulting in annoying but not fatal results to vehicles. Couple this with a relative high cost of these weapons, and in case of the Support Platforms an awkward placement in FOC, you have a weapon piece which is no longer very competitive since the glory days of 1st and 2nd edition where they were the bane of everything that didn't have Eldar initiative.
Option 1: All spinner weapons gain the same extra rules as the Nightspinner has.
Analysis 1: The Nightspinner concept is intriguing. Instead of offering punching power, it is a threatening weapon which has a high potential of immobilizing the enemy, either literally or through threat. The problem with the Nightspinner rules is that they suffer from poor writing, resulting in that the main threat component might be completely negated or removed simply because of how the rules handle certain situations.
Proposition 1: All spinner weapons gain the following rules: Rending and "If an enemy unit is hit by a spinner, the unit is covered in rapidly stiffening mono-filament weave, which might not be immediately lethal, but which will prove difficult to remove oneself from. Place a marker on a unit hit by a Spinner weapon, the next time that unit moves for any reason, remove the marker and treat the unit as if being affected by difficult terrain. In addition the unit must immediately take a dangerous terrain test, even if they would otherwise not do so under normal circumstances.". Warp Spiders will likely need their points increased, probably on a squad basis rather than a model basis.

Plasma weaponry
Problem: Eldar plasma weaponry, while the thing which is presented as being one of the key points of the race, is very limited in appearance; Star Cannon. The interesting thing is that plasma pistols aren't even presented as a weapon option for HQ characters! The Star Cannon suffer hugely from being low-shot for a very high cost. The Star Cannon negates typical MEQ saves, but not TEQ (Terminator) saves, and do not do anything about cover. As a result, Star Cannons see very little use, and even less in competitive lists.
Option 1: Decrease cost of Star Cannon significantly.
Analysis 1: This is a very straight-forward solution. Assuming that nothing is inherently wrong with the weapon, simply make it worth while as an option.
Proposition 1: Star Cannon point cost reduced to near the same level as Shuriken Cannons, although slightly more expensive.

Option 2: Increase performance of Star Cannon to match price.
Analysis 2: This is a throw-back to 3rd edition codex, where it is important to remember that the advised coverage of terrain was lower and the vehicles were relatively more expensive compared to pure infantry squads.
Proposition 2: Keep point cost, increase number of shots to 3.

Suggestion: Add more plasma weapons.
Star Rifles: Weapon upgrades for Guardian Defenders primarily, these weapons provide higher AP and strength at the cost of number of shots.
Plasma pistols: HQ character upgrades, primarily. Typically S6, Ap3, Pistol.
Analysis: Star Rifles is the main thing with this suggestion. This adds customization to a unit which does not conform to the Eldar way of dedication when it comes to warfare (Guardians do not follow the dedicated path of war, so why should they be strict in their wargear?), while at the same time providing a way of adding more anti-MEQ to an army which is generally starved for it in the troop section. The key is that the Star Rifles shouldn't be better against Ap5 or worse opponents, so a relatively lower rate of fire is called for.

Lance weaponry
Problem: Technically speaking, we've got 3 lance weapons; Bright Lance, Star Lance and Laser Lance, however, only one of these are actually actively used as a ranged weapon, namely the Bright Lance. The Bright Lance suffer from paying for it's destructive power against vehicles through the lancing effect, but in reality it's only a very few armies where it is actually useful. In this edition where transports are much more common, and where anti-tank weapons need to deal with them more often than actual heavy armour, the Bright Lance simply pay more than it's worth. By comparison, a Lascannon is considered too expensive for MEQ compared to many options and a Lascannon, while costing the Marines the same at BS4 as our Bright Lances at BS4, is better against everything except non-Monolith AV14 - it's even got better range!
Option 1: Reduce price.
Analysis 1: This follows the same reasoning as with the Star Cannon's point reduction reasoning. In most cases, the Bright Lance is equal to the Eldar Missile Launcher in terms of anti-vehicle power, but the two weapons differ when it comes to infantry and AV13+. Equalizing the points between the two would mean that you choose the Bright Lance when you expect to come up against a heavier Mech force from Marines or IG, while you choose the EML when you expect to need to deal with infantry as well.
Proposition 1: Reduce all Bright Lance options to the same cost of EML, assuming the EML is correctly costed.

Option 2: Increase power.
Analysis 2: Simply put; make the weapon better against it's intended target. Increasing the weapon's strength would mean it would make a mockery out of nearly any armour, while this is a real option it is not one I'd prefer. The simplistic solution of increasing the weapon's AP value to 1 instead of 2 would mean that the weapon's power against TEQ is not altered, but that it deals more dangerous results when penetrating vehicles' armour. Whether the weapon would make up for it's point cost is dubious, still, but the real risk of the weapon being inferior to the more versatile EML is lessened.
Proposition 2: Bright Lances' AP is improved to AP1.

Suggestion: The weapon is changed to Assault 1.
Analysis: In an on-going struggle to make Guardian squads more versatile, Bright Lances could be made assault 1 and be given as a limited weapon upgrade for Guardian Defenders similar to Fusion or Flamer upgrades for Guardian Storms. Additionally, this weapon could then be given to Shining Spears, either as a squad option or as an exarch option in order to alter their role or give them more versatility - in reality more ranged reach.

Prism weaponry
All in all, the prism weapons, while limited in number, do not suffer from any significant problems and are perhaps the most current weapons in the Eldar arsenal.

Distort weapons

Fusion weapons

Here's an idea thats sort of a compromise between the DS attack, and all else.

Give the hawks Turboboost (skyleap is a good name for the ability - it would just be - Skyleap: The Hawk Squad has the Turboboost USR).

Power: Aerial Assault - during a turn in which the hawks arrived by deepstrike or turboboosted, nominate an enemy unit. For each hawk model within 24" of that unit at the end of the assault phase, you may make 1 grenade attack against the nominated unit. Resolve attacks against infantry at S4 AP6, and as a haywire grenade against targets with an AV.

10 hawks - 5 S4 hits, 2/3 wounds vs T4, 1-2 dead vs 3+. vs AV, 5 hits with haywires, 1 pen, 2 glances, ish. Not a bad power, but they're still T3 4+ models.

I don't like DS-reliant powers, especially if they can redeploy with DS, because it basically means its happening every turn.

Also S3 AP5 R24 assault 3 and S4 ap5 R24 assault 2 aren't that different, Math-wise. I prefer S3 Assault 3, just to stay within the idiom.

Oh Mahtamori's weapons:

The DA vs guardians issue is the real problem. Rending on DA cats isn't a bad solution, but it seems like the usual rending cop out. On the other hand, its a hail of mono-edged blades. If that isn't rending, what is? I support regular cats at S4 Ap5 R18" assault 2 Rending, DA Cats at S4 Ap4 R18" Assault 2, rending

Monofilament ... yes. Basically, this should happen, along with a serious buff to hawks, and and maybe, maybe a decrease to 20ppm for both. Its eldar - don't decrease the cost, make the models with the cost.

Star cannons are AP2, and, if they remain S6, should exist between the shuricannon and scatter laser in price. If it is made S7 Ap2 Heavy 2.... it becomes good, because now its able to to more damage to vehicles. so, generally agree, though i think +1 S instead of +1 shot (its like imperial, only more controlled - no blast, no gets hot)

Brightlance - S9 Ap1 Heavy 1 R48" Lance
Pulse Laser - S8 Ap2 Heavy 2 R48" <---- this should proliferate

Part of the problem with fire dragons is that there is no other anti tank. Brightlances should not be expensive, but should be limited in platform. Basically, they should be available only on tanks and wraithlords. Conversely, the easy-to-access anti-tank weapon should be the pulse laser. It should be Heavy 2 still, to counteract BS3, and it should be available to guardian defenders, vypers, war walkers, wraithlords, etc etc etc. The brightlance, which, with S9 ap1, will be very effective against AV13+, should be a non-cheap weapon that is taken for use against AV13 targets. The pulse laser should be the go-to weapon for "You need more AT in your list" situations. The eldar autocannon, don't leave home without it.

Prism weapons - hard to find a problem.... upgrade to allow shaken/stunned prisms to still link? Always twin linked? I dunno. Heavy 2?

D-weapons - hard to say. Generally, I think Ap2, wounds on a 2, glance 2-3, pen 4+ (slight upgrade there) Instant death, on a 6, possible invuln-saves-only on a 6 (no cover for vehicles/infantry)?. The wraithcannons should be avail to both the guard and the lords, and D-cannon should be available to the falcon, lord, and platform. Perhaps the falcon can go 2x D-cannon?
Wraithcannon profile possibilities (just ideas):
R18" SX Ap2 Assault 1
R24" SX Ap2 Rapidfire
R12" Sx Ap2 Assault 2
R18" SX Ap2 Assault 2

D cannon:
R24" SX Ap2 Blast, Heavy2
R24" SX AP2 Blast Heavy1 (keep in mind my proposed proliferation of platforms... if a falcon can take two of these, or a wraithlord one...)
R36" SX Ap2 Blast Heavy 1
Dual Profile:
R36" SX Ap2 Blast Heavy 1
R18" SX Ap2 Large Blast Heavy 1

Fusion... I think normal melta profiles is ok.

As far as I see it, I think the best solution to define the difference between Shuriken catapults and Avenger Shuriken catapults (if range is changed to 18" across the board) wuold be an AP improvement, or rending as previously suggested. The AP change would make no difference against the majority of opponents (Space Marines ) and I dont think it would justify taking Avengers when compaired to guardians. I think Rending would do the job, even if it is a bit of a half arsed solution.

As far as Spinner weapons go (on spiders) they should have very little direct killing power, and have the difficult/dangerous terrain effect as their main advantage. maybe make them S1 or 2 Template (they always hit so are always going to be effected by the monofilament wire rule), maybe give them rending to keep them in line with the night spinner.

Plasma weapons coud possibly be given to guardins in place of fusion guns? That keeps the fire dragons as the ultimate AV13+ killers, but gives guardians punch when fighting MEQ and transports.

I write a lot of things from memory, and while it's usually good I've ended up with a lot of weapons profiles from a lot of codices in my memory, so sometimes I'll make mistakes with my own army :p

@ Prism weapons: I don't think this really is much of a problem. The key is not to improve the list everywhere, the good options and decent costs could stick around unmodified.

@ Distort weapons: I'm still not convinced Wraithlords should lugg these aroung. 'lords are described in terms of close combat, even though it makes sense in a symmetric way to upgrade Wraithguard to a larger version.
The main proliferation of distort weapons, I recon, would come from moving Support Weapons to Troop - preferably as an option for Defenders. Additionally, Nightspinner is a good platform for sticking Vibro and Distort weapons on - it sort of makes sense and considering how the Nightspinner sprue is built, you need minimum conversion work to make it a reality.

@ Pulse Laser: I forgot laser tech! Yes, it's a good one to stick around in more places. It will completely replace Bright Lance, though, in it's current form.

@ Bright Lance: That proposed Bright Lance might merit a slight increase in point cost. At least 30 points when twin-linked or BS4 isn't too unreasonable considering it'll likely to destroy any target it hits (penetrating on 4+ on AV13 and 2+ on AV11, with 4+ to destroy and guaranteed to cause serious impact).

Bleh, i meant to say guardian cats no rending, avenger cats rending. d'oh.

And for the pulse laser/ BL changes i suggested. They key is to make the pulse laser available on many platforms, and the brightlance to be restricted to a few. That, combined with appropriate pricing, will ensure that it isn't spammed.

All in all, providing a good source of anti-AV13+ weaponry is absolutely key to changing the elite slot from a dragon-spam situation.

So basically interchanging BL's and Pulse Lasers, Pulse lasers are only available on falcons at the moment, so If the tables were turned and the new and improved Bright lance was only available on a falcon (for example), you would give a good reason to take the falcon AND stop them getting spammed.

To avoid codex creep - my proposals would be to minimize the changes to weapons.

Catapult - 18" Rapid Fire S4 - Standard. Gives guardians a little more than 12" fire-before-you-die and makes it a stationary weapon for them. On Lords, Bikes, Vehicles it gives them an 18" range but with only 1 shot. Dire Avengers keep 18" Assault 2 - This is because a) they are dedicated aspect warriors so they can fire it accurately on the move b) perhaps a slightly superior catapult.

Not making it rending keeps it a superior weapon to other army's base weapon in the hands of DA and improves it for all others without ending up recosting them.

Shuriken Cannon 24" H3 S6 AP4 - The default weapon - proposed as a no-cost weapon automatically included on any platform or vehicle. Cheap, short-ranged but effective.

Las weapons - Lasblaster 24" A3 S3 AP5 Better than before with ROF and potential Hawk improvement in BS. Even though they have a lot of damage potential, they are still in the hands of a T3 Sv4+ eldar so you need to be careful with them
Scatterlaser 36" H4 S6 AP5 Good Anti-personnel with an possible AT use
Laser Lance 6" A1 S6 AP2 S6 PW in HTH 1st Round. S6 PF in following rounds - makes it more deadly in succeeding rounds but now I1.
Star Lance 6" A1 S8 AP2 As Laser Lance but S8
Pulse Laser 36" H2 S8 AP2 Possibly make it ROF 3 if it remains a Falcon only weapon - yes it would be deadly but you might actually want a Falcon. Leave it ROF 2 if you make it the guardian platform weapon.

Plasma Weapons - StarCannon 36" A2 S6 AP2 Kept as today's stat line mainly due to proposed increase of WS4 to vehicles and possibly guardians. A3 would make it too much of an auto-choice for power gaming if WS is 4. Cost should be equivalent of Scatter Laser so the choice is AP with ROF2 or no AP and ROF4

Bright Lance - 36" H1 S8 AP1 REDUCE AV to 12 if > 12. Keep it Heavy - assuming it will be opposite a Dark Eldar Dark Lance - I agree with the AP 1 and keeping its cost where it is at today. This makes a BL a good alternative to Fire Dragons being spammed in the mech-happy 5ed world.

D-Cannon - 24" H1 Rof 1 Small Blast. SX AP1 Make it an option for lords and vehicles.

Spinner - 48" H1 Rof 1 Large Blast. Night spinner rules.

VibroCannon - Killed by the new charts. SX AP- Perhaps make any vehicle targeted subject to dangerous terrain test plus glancing hit. Also any units that are in a straight line to the target are subject to a dangerous terrain test the next time they move. This would make it a direct-fire movement-affecting weapon with little direct chance of killing a vehicle. Perhaps make it an auto-glance on a vehicle with a +1 chart modifier per platform so if you have the maximum of 3 you would be rolling at -1 on the vehicle damage chart. Make each platform roll to hit... (e.g. 3 platforms in a unit target a landraider with 2 hitting. So it is a roll on vehicle damage table with -2. -2 Glance, -1 AP-. +1 2nd platform hits. Any unit hit or intervening in a straight line are subject to dangerous terrain test the next time they move.)

EML - As is.

A revision on Pulse Laser: it's statline is currently nearly exactly a +2S Star Cannon. With proliferation of Pulse Lasers, Star Cannons need to be A3 to make any sense at all. Translated this means that "we've already got a form of the Pulse Laser"

I do tend to agree with DAaddict's assessment regarding most weapons, although I'd personally point out that I see no real error with the Vibro Cannon if taken one-by-one. The major fault with all Support Platform weapons is that they scale poorly in numbers (this is especially true for the Vibro Cannon) and that they can't be fired when moved. The key with the Vibro Cannon is that it really need to line up the shot.
I do not think Wraith Lords make a good platform for them, however, but would rather see them accompanied by Guardian Squads or mounted on Falcon hulls (Nightspinner is a good example).

I'll just point out that the Nightspinner rules have a small discrepancy. Most forced movements will remove the token (if you assault a unit with the Nightspinner token) without the token doing anything.

Giving Guardians a short-ranged Bolter is not something I'd receive well. The problem will remain the same, the range increase is 6" which is a normal movement. 18" rapid fire might work against opponents whom are notoriously bad at judging distances or who have no luck on run rolls. The only real difference with giving it rapid fire 18" is that Guardians will no longer be able to shoot and then "escape" into close combat if faced by superior fire power - well that and it'd help tanks actually use that pea shooter once in a while.
Essentially, 18" rapid fire is a down-grade rather than an upgrade. (Do note that GJB and Vypers would be just about the only units where it'd be a serious upgrade)
The problem with Guardians would remain - 8 points for 5 point infantry... even though we're discussing weapons, I just want to highlight the amount of extra rules and freebies necessary to make a Guardian squad worthwhile.

Shuriken Cannon provided as a default weapon you upgrade from is a good choice. "You must choose a weapon from the list X, Y, Z" isn't a good line to bandy about, I recon.

If you don't like the rapid fire, then I would like to see a non-DA catapult be S3 18" A2. The DA should stand out as the epitome of catapult shootiness but I concead that 12" range "shotgun" catapults just don't cut it in today's environment. S3 would be a downgrade for all the vehicle mounts but the extra 18" range would off-set that.

The problem is that (I assume) if you change normal (non avenger shuriken catapult)weapons to S3 you'll effect all vehicles and all Shuripistol units as well, basically making them GEQ's.

Well, we're slipping back to Guardians again, but simply if you alter the Shuriken Weapons to maintain a relative balance to their current state - then you still need to reduce the point cost of the actual Guardians since their performance is abysmal for their point cost. If you soup up their guns, or up their special rules or other wargear, then the current power of the weapons may work.
However, changing Guardian catapults have ramifications on other parts of the army as well.
* Guardian Jetbikes - they aren't much killy and their survivability is low for their cost.
* Wraithlords - Shuriken Catapults is a non-option since they are significantly worse than flamers.
* Vypers - These units suffer greatly from low killing power compared to cost and survivability. Shuriken Cats being a defensive weapon has significant impact on their worth.
* Pistols - Altering the strength or AP of catapults have an indirect effect on these. They remain a useful tool for Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, Harlequins, and above all Guardian Storm.
* Vehicles in general - The Eldar vehicles are short on defensive weapons, there isn't much proliferation like there is in Empire equivalents. The range and prohibitive area of fire mean that these weapons generally aren't taken into account in actual performance. Altering catapults may either make these vehicles slightly more "killy" or a shrug of "meh" as far as defensive weapons are concerned. At present, I'd say an increase in the power of their defensive weapons is merited.

At present codex I can not see a single unit where an improved Shuriken Catapult is not needed. The only issue is the clash between Guardians and Dire Avengers. The question is, is status quo for Dire Avengers sufficient reason to leave so many units in the rest of the codex suffering from poor standard weapons?

This is one of the times I completely agree with everything in your post Mahtamori

At present codex I can not see a single unit where an improved Shuriken Catapult is not needed. The only issue is the clash between Guardians and Dire Avengers. The question is, is status quo for Dire Avengers sufficient reason to leave so many units in the rest of the codex suffering from poor standard weapons?

No it isn't, the only solution I can see is to improve the Avenger Shuricats in some way, otherwise you'll render DA's useless. If they were somthing along the line of:

Shuriken Pistol R12" S4 AP5 Pistol
Shuriken Catapult R18" S4 AP5 Assault 2
Avenger Catapult R24"? (but is that really needed) S4 AP5 Assault 2
Or
Avenger Catapult R18" S4 AP 5 Assault 2 Rending (half assed solution?)
Or
Avenger Catapult R18" S4 AP 5 Assault 3 (maybe too scary when combined with blade storm?)

I wouldn't call Rending a half-assed solution, for several Eldar weaponry it's even likely, but it gets bandied about a lot. With Dire Avengers you can also solve it through special rules, they are masters of their weapon, capable of handling it beyond what BS4 suggests. What I mean is that you don't need to give them a separate profile. Can give them just about any special rule possible, rending, pinning, etc etc. Question is: what makes sense?

Any messing with the base weapon of a race/codex has far reaching effects. I agree that the catapult (non-dire avenger) is virtually worthless other than on an GJB and the only way that is good is because of the 6" assault move giving it a virtual 18" range. Go back to 2nd ed and catapults had great range and ROF though they did jam. 3rd ed saw the birth of the 12" range catapult which does make it a superfluous vehicle mount and nothing but a 1 (actually 2) shot before you get into HTH. The 5th ed close combat rules have made non-CC units like GJB and guardians really just dead for getting into HTH so a 12" range gun is just a suicide weapon in the current environment.

My solution would still be to not improve the dire avenger weapon 32 S4 shots at WS 4 are scary enough for any opponent. So you are left with Vehicles, GJB, and Guardian catapults needing to be addressed without altering DA catapults. A few options we have tossed around:

S4 12" A2 -worthless on vehicles & guardians. ok GJB
S4 18" RF - great for vehicles and GJB. Somewhat address the guardian range issue. Does make guardians non-mobile to get that range but is that a bad thing?
S3 18" A2 - probably ok for all but S3 really is a downer.

Why not S4 24" RF? makes bikes and vehicles have a great weapon and makes a guardian defender an offensive shooty weapon.

I have stated before the 18" Rapid Fire would be my choice with the logic being it is the dedication of a dire avenger that turns it into an assault weapon. I could live with 24" RF with the same logic though. The logic being altered that DAs give up a little range for a stream of fire and mobility.

As far as rending, this is a weapon trait not a dire avenger skill so fine if catapults are all made rending but not as a DA only upgrade. No zen-like focus of an aspect warrior should make a monofilament disc slice through ceramite any better than an artist pulling the trigger of the same gun.

24" rapid fire or more is just about the only thing that'd be an improvement for Guardians, simply because you don't get 18" range if you move, making the extra 6" if you stand still a non-upgrade. As I've detailed earlier, I'd see 18" rapid fire as a down-grade, not an upgrade.

With 24" rapid fire you can make new and exciting stuff for Dire Avengers, though.
Option 1: Dire Avengers treat their weapons as if they are stationary, regardless if they've moved or not. Makes Dire Avengers more shooty. Bladestorm would still provide +1 shot per weapon, even at max range.
Option 2: Dire Avengers treat their weapons as if they were assault with the same profile. Makes Dire Avengers a lot more shooty (perhaps too much) and slightly more assaulty.
Option 3 (the complicated option): Dire Avengers may treat their weapons as either 12/18" Assault 2 or 24" Heavy 2
Option 4: Bladestorm is removed as a unit upgrade. Dire Avengers treat their weapons as either 12" Assault or 24" Heavy 3. Makes Dire Avengers more shooty, but less capable of dropping massive attacks from a transport.

I'd still argue
Shuriken Catapult 18" S4 AP5 Assault 2.
Dire Avengers would get an upgrade as standard, either Rending or Bladestorm for free, or similar.
I simply do not see Shuriken Catapults (standard edition) being viable anywhere in the army otherwise. (They'd still be worthless on Wraithlords, though Wraithlords would need something stronger in terms of S and AP to compete with the flamer)

P.S. What do you think about Move Through Cover as an army-wide special rule?

@Mahtamori- I we were considering giving the rule to Avengers specifically, rather than the gun, we could just scrap the existing shuriken catapult and make the current Avenger shuriken catapult into the standard version. That would improve everything (apart from pistols) and still keep avengers different enough to be viable.

I'd avoid pinning (its rangers/pathfinders job), Pinning is an option, negates cover maybe? What other options are there? and what do you think would be most relevent?

It has been said before, guardians role is to protect their platform(s). A Rapid fire option keeps it that way and it becomes a "bonus" when you don't need to move the unit that all the catapults get to unload. I don't think giving up the ability to assault is a real downgrade in 5th ed seeing guardians are going to lose to almost anything in HTH. Their tactics would be to keep shooting the platform and stay +12" away from any threat unless they can kill it with concentrated fire. Basically what they do today. GJB - because the bike will get to fire no matter what do not get killed by rapid fire at all so 18" or 24" is just more shooting. Vehicles would be able to shoot theirs no matter what it is just that their primary weapon may be more anti-vehicle so the catapult (defensive fire) doesn't matter.

The other part that enters into this weapon discussion is of course cost of the guardian/da and not making eldar OP in relation to other armies. Also is a stated goal to avoid a hoard option to a guardian-based eldar army. If I took a comparison of guardians to IG to orks, guardians are way overpriced for their effect but I think dire avengers are priced competitively for their effect and durability.

My 18" RF solution would also include that guardians are a 6 pt cost not today's cost.

18" for DA is good as it makes them get into opponent's effect ranges but the 18" range allows you to stay out of charge range. 18" assault is about the equivalent as 24"
rapid fire so from a guardian only perspective 24" rapid fire gives them some use other than being a meat shield. As a wind rider player 24" TL shots will make me very happy as that means I stay out of the range of all but Tau and heavy weapons.

I'm opposed to any rapid fire in Eldar. Eldar are the highly mobile army with only 2 units not able to move and shoot. Even in a non-mech force, Eldar are one of the most mobile armies around (although not as much since the stupid run rule). I always play with large guardian defender squads and never find them standing around.

Even if it means dropping them to 18" Assault 1, I'd support that over a rapid fire gun, which wouldn't be any better than the current gun.

I understand RF affects guardians - it has little or no effect on GJB or vehicle mounts. Personally RF 18" or 24" is fine for Guardian Defenders - emphasis on Defenders as all the drawbacks of RF do not apply to vehicles or bikes.

The whole core of the issue is to get a match of abilities to cost. My preference is not to add any cost to DAs and thus to keep their weapon close to its current abilities. So that then restricts what you should do to affect all non-DA catapults. What also plays into that is what BS you end up with for guardians. If an 8 point guardian has a 18" S4 A2 catapult and a WS of 4 what then is the value of a DA? Does free bladestorm and 4+ armor justify 12 for a DA?
A1 would be fine but personally I would rather have rapid fire as the only thing I am giving up is the ability to fire 2 shots and charge with my WS 3 S 3 A1 I 4 guardian. Personally I would rather be able to fire once out to 18" or the option to close to 12" and pump off two shots rather than a guaranteed 1 shot at all ranges. It keeps the emphasis on the platform but with a little additional firepower for a guardian defender under the right conditions. RF 18" still improves bikes and vehicle mounts automatically.

I don't really know you guys but I think these are cool rules:

1) Let Guardians, or maybe all units with Shuricats (and Shuripistols I suppose) Run/ Fleet, fire and assault the turn they fire. Unless they disembark of course then no Assault. But basically Run/ Fleet and fire in the same turn. This could be used of course to go backwards. Maybe all units with Fleet, that sounds better. Maybe looking at changing Fleet!

2) Give Guardian Jetbikes, or maybe as an upgrade option, Shrieker Ammo which I believe is rending but I might be wrong. You know like Death Jesters. This could then affect both the Shuricats and the Shuriken Cannon, which are traditional Jetbike weapons.

Guardians used to be good because they could shoot twice and assault. Now Marines get two shots rapid fire, one shot on the charge while Guardians still get their two. Giving Guardians what can be the fall back move, or you could also use it to charge does not seem unreasonable to me.

Giving it to DA it is not like they are that great anyway. The only way I can think of it being OP is if you included Asurmen or another Pheonix Lord. You could look at things like Bladestorm is every turn but they can't Bladestorm and Run/ Fleet the same turn.

Personally I think 18" is over-powered for Guardians unless you wanted to raise their points cost.

Tacobake wrote:1) Let Guardians, or maybe all units with Shuricats (and Shuripistols I suppose) Run/ Fleet, fire and assault the turn they fire. Unless they disembark of course then no Assault. But basically Run/ Fleet and fire in the same turn. This could be used of course to go backwards. Maybe all units with Fleet, that sounds better. Maybe looking at changing Fleet!

+1000

Eldar's niche was the fact that (almost) every squad is fleet and our vehicles are fast. Our army had low Str, low T, junky Armor, good weapons, and great mobility.

Now, with everyone getting run, half of our units have an ability they no longer need. Most of our units with fleet are units that will never launch an assault. Who, besides Banshees and Harlies would you care or even notice if it lost fleet?

We still have our fast, awesome transports, but the foot infantry are no longer more mobile than other armies.

Eldar need all their fleet rules to be something new that allows this. The only question is: Do you have to move+run+shoot+assault or can you move+shoot+run+assault? I'd prefer the latter, but the former is probably more balanced.

move + shoot + run + assault is probably more ballanced, otherwise you could effectively be increasing the range of all (non heavy) weapons by up to 6" with no negative effect at all.

I still think DA's would need improvement (and possibly a point increase) if we were giving guardins 18" range.

Gorechild wrote:move + shoot + run + assault is probably more ballanced, otherwise you could effectively be increasing the range of all (non heavy) weapons by up to 6" with no negative effect at all.

I still think DA's would need improvement (and possibly a point increase) if we were giving guardins 18" range.

I was more imagining: Move ~6" closer to be on the edge of shooting distance, shoot, run 1-6" away to get out of assault range.

Eldar with Fleet special rule may always move 6" in the assault phase, even if not assaulting?
Move -> shoot -> run -> assault = 6+D6 move and shoot range, 12+D6 shoot and assault range
Move -> shoot or run -> move or assault = 12" move and shoot range, 12" shoot and assault range, 12+D6" assault range
Essentially, speeds you up more when you don't want to shoot and assault, but doesn't speed you up when you want to shoot and assault.

I feel an army-wide JSJ for non-jetbike is a bit much, though.

Here's a different take on it:
Wording 1:An Eldar unit with Fleet may choose to fire their weapon in the movement phase, when they count as moving. If the unit chose to do this, they make make a normal move in the shooting phase instead.
Wording 2: An Eldar unit may declare to make an orderly retreat instead of moving. The unit will then make a normal move in the shooting phase directly after firing their weapons, and when they fire their weapons they count as moving.
-> Effectively gives you the option of retreating and shooting

I like wording 2 better.

I think that shuriken catapults should be assault weapons since it wouldn't make sense to give Defenders heavy weapons that can shoot accurately while moving but normal weapons that can't do the same. Avenger shuriken catapults have built-in rangefinders so what about allowing them to measure distances to their target before declaring shooting? (That's what Ork rangefinders do)
Another way to distinguish Avengers from Guardians would be to give them better combat abilities. Apparently Avengers often carry shurikens with them to use in fights and remind themselves of the shrine, what about instead of making their guns rending give their cc attacks rending?

Similarly could have them use their Shuriken Catapults in melee, increasing their strength to S3(4). This would be an interesting way to deal with Dire Avengers, simply make them an assault (both ranged and melee) unit where Guardians are either ranged or melee - yet still not an amalgamation of the two.
I don't believe rending on a mostly shooting-oriented troop unit for a non-melee oriented army is quite called for, but it's certainly an option.

For the exarch, the weapon options would be:
1. Dual Catapults - S3(4) A2 (they're still not pistols, and the increased shooting makes this one well worth it)
2. Shimmer Shield* and Power Weapon - S3 A2 Power weapon
3. Shuriken Pistol** and Dire Sword - S3(4) A2(3) Forceweapon Light

* How about this item giving the squad a 5+ invulnerable in shooting as well?
** Could use an upgrade to single-handed catapult to make more sense

Gorechild wrote:If they were somthing along the line of:

Shuriken Pistol R12" S4 AP5 Pistol
Shuriken Catapult R18" S4 AP5 Assault 2
Avenger Catapult R18" S4 AP 5 Assault 2 Rending

I think this is the best solution.

And mahtamori, for the DA exarch options, I like what you wrote. I do however think the exarch should be able to take Shimmershield and Diresword or Power weapon and Shuriken pistol
(In his left hand, he may hold either a Shpistol for 5 pts or Shimmershield for 10. In his right hand...)

* How about this item giving the squad a 5+ invulnerable in shooting as well?

That would certainly heighten its price a lot, but would make it much more useful. I'm not sure about it.

The problem I see is that I cant see any situation that would justify using DA's over Guardians if they have 18" range. I wouldn't use the DA's for combat, If I was getting into an assault I'd bring Banshee's, Scorps or Quins. They are meant to be specialized, not able to be thrown into whatever situation and be okay.

As Saintspirit said, I like Mahtamori's exarch gear options, but think they should be allowed more combinations:

Shuriken Catapult/Shuriken Catapult (default option)
Shuriken Catapult/Shimmer Shield
Shuriken Catapult/Dire Sword
Shuriken Catapult/Power weapon
Dire Sword/Shimmer Shield
Power weapon/Shimmer Shield

Gorechild wrote:The problem I see is that I cant see any situation that would justify using DA's over Guardians if they have 18" range. I wouldn't use the DA's for combat, If I was getting into an assault I'd bring Banshee's, Scorps or Quins. They are meant to be specialized, not able to be thrown into whatever situation and be okay.

As Saintspirit said, I like Mahtamori's exarch gear options, but think they should be allowed more combinations:

Shuriken Catapult/Shuriken Catapult (default option)
Shuriken Catapult/Shimmer Shield
Shuriken Catapult/Dire Sword
Shuriken Catapult/Power weapon
Dire Sword/Shimmer Shield
Power weapon/Shimmer Shield

I agree with exarch stuff but like Gorechild said if the guardians have 18" why bother using DA's guardians would just be better they have a heavy platform and can shoot almost 2 feet. the only thing DA's have on them is the exarch options and a slightly better armour save. If we want to make guardians better give them an Exarch equivalent because I know they aren't an aspect so give them like guardian militia leader for +10 points with the defender ability and stubborn and the option to maybe take another platform for +20 points +whatever the weapon cost would be (just as an example) I really wouldn't worry so much about the shuricats for the guardians or DA's they are good enough as is. Maybe and i say this very very lightly you could maybe add rending to DA shuricats because the DA's are the soldiers.

think of it this way put a sniper rifle in the hand of a professional soldier and he'll kill much more efficently than if you handed a sniper rifle to your buddy in the next cubicle over.

With the changes we've suggested for guardians they are a VERY attractive troop choice compaired to the existing DA's and Rangers. Why would you spend ~160 points on Avengers to ride in a Wave Serpent when a 100 point Guardian squad will do the same and have a heavy weapon platform?
Athough DA's get the extra shot from bladestorm, this won't be much of an advantage when a guardian unit can have a couple of scatter lasers with them.
Avengers are a brilliant troop choice atm, but I think a big factor in them being so good is that there is no other eldar scoring unit that can even begin to compare. If the Guardians were made as good as we are suggesting (perfectly reasonably) then Avengers seem to be a less attractive option without having done a thing to them.

Currently I think DA's are well priced for their performance (YMMV). So to be able to make them stand out they will probably need a price increase, but a point or 2 per model for rending would be fair and make them another appealing option.

Do you guys agree?

I agree completely they are a great unit right now and IF[b][u] we are going to make guardians better then adding a few points to DA's cost per model for the ability to rend is well worth it and will definitely keep them as an attractive troop choice.

DAs need to have more upside to being closer to the enemy. As it stands with the proposed changes, neither units wants to be in CC, and the Guardians are basically as effective plus they have support weapons.

Guardians:
WS/BS 3, S/T3, A1 I4 W1 Ld8 5+

Shuriken cats: S4 ap5 R18 A2
1 platform per 6, 6-12 size

DAs:
WS/BS4 S/T3 A1 I5 W1 Ld9 4+
DA Cats: S4 Ap4 R18 A2, Rending
close combat weapon
Shuriken pistol (or true grit for the DA cats)

Exarch:
5/5/3/3/2/6/1/10/4+
may exchange:
Pistol for a 2nd DA cat, now counting his weapona as S4 Ap4 R18 A4, Rending + 10 pts
DA S.cat for shimmershield (4++ save to entire squad in combat) +15 pts
ccw for power sword - 5 pts
ccw for dire sword (+1 S, power weapon) +15pts


Basically - make them better in CC. They can now tarpit pretty much anything, with their 4++. Guardians, if you get them in CC, will fold. DAs will stick around, especially with 2A each, and a S4 powerweapon on the exarch.

All the recent points revolve around viable troop choices and I wholeheartedly agree - give guardians S4 18" A2 cats and you have removed every reason to field DA. DA should be the most common aspect - the meat and potatoes - dedicated eldar warrior. Do a little mathhammer and even if you stay WS 3, I will take guardians with a multi-purpose platform over an anti-personnel specialits DA unit. If I want to sit back, I will take rangers/pathfinders (though not too many) and if I want a fast moving attack unit I will take GJB especially with 18" range as that gives them a 24" stand off with almost as much accuracy as DAs. What I recall from our previous discussions:

Guardians: 5 to 15 size. 1 platform per 5 guardians. May add 1 Warlock. Proposed change to Enhance to make it +1 BS in addition to +1 WS and +1 I. Shuriken Cannon is free with all others reduced. Potentially replace bright lance with pulse laser. So 15 guardians with 3 shuriken cannons and an enhance warlock... I think this costs in around 155. Give them 18" S4 A2 cats and we are putting out an average of 16 S4 and 6 S6 hits per turn. Go with the a DA with bladestorm and dual cats and it puts out 16 S4 hits for the about the same cost. Give the DAs rending and 2-3 of those hits average as AP2 so an increase of 1+ MEQ casualties over today. Congradulations, people will retire Dire avengers. So let's look at durability - 16 wounds in the guardian squad versus 10 in the DA squad. 4+ armor should make the DAs a better choice but the proliferation of cover saves makes the 16 wounds getting cover better.

Guardian defenders should not be the equivalent of DA's with a catapult. At best, get the guardians to equal DA with 3 anti-personnel platforms or the cost should be increased.

As I have said before, get the fluff right and then get a playable cost... I feel that DA are priced about right today so with all the increases in capability that guardians would get, a guardian with S4 18" A2 catapults should cost out at around 10 each so 185 for 15 w 3 shuriken cannons and an enhance warlock. Remove the dedicated transport option from guardians and that becomes your deciding factor on what troop you want to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With previous proposed Dire Avengers. The change to the statline of a middle Aspect Warrior would be to add 1 A. So WS4 BS4 S3 I5 W1 A2 Ld 9 Sv 4+ for dire avengers. Not overpowering but when you figure a dire avenger contemplating assaulting will probably bladestorm and have defend up so 27 to 32 S4 cat shots followed by 27 S3 regular attacks and 4 S4 PW attacks with a -1 on opponent attacks, they should still be a better general troop choice than even 15 guardians with a warlock if you are looking for close combat flexibility.

+1WS and +1Sv goes a long way in current edition to receive an assault. People say "just use Scorpions as a deterrent", well... the problem is, Guardians are a liability for the Scorpions, they are much easier to kill than Dire Avengers (unless we give Guardians 4+ save, of course) and means they are free combat resolution.
Dire Avengers can, which Guardians can't, Blade Storm. This is a very notable difference, especially factoring in that Blade Storm doesn't change the weapon characteristic nor assault phase. A slightly more competent in melee Dire Avenger, which unleash +50% fire and assaults afterwards is going to be a Guardian - meaning the Guardian will have to make full use of their heavy weapon(s) to make back their points.

Speaking of Serpents... what if Guardians became so good that they were actually worth 8 points? Would the platform really necessary to be mandatory at that time, and if so could the platform negate the Wave Serpent? I'm thinking that each Guardian squad may take a free platform with a Shuriken Cannon, but if they do they can't transport. If the squad is maximized (10), they may add another free Shuriken Cannon.
If platforms weren't mandatory, Guardians could be made versatile. The upgrade options for Storm and Defenders joined and the difference between the two erased. In such a case, naturally, better armour saves would strictly not be necessary - however, I do not think CCW+Pistol on a Guardian is an attractive option, but rather a Chainsword+Pistol is merited there.
(Oh, look, we're back to Guardians!)

The problem is that the two units will be similar whatever you do, but by focusing Guardians more towards melta/flamer range or Star Cannon range (or both, actually), Dire Avengers could see a radical change with the second Exarch power. There's really two options:
1. Make Dire Avengers more inclined to hold the line (or set up a new one), while Guardians make the push (or stand back). Improve Shimmer Shield, make Defence the mandatory power, and you have Dire Avengers be the objective catcher/holder.
2. Make Dire Avengers more inclined to be assault unit, while Guardians act as secondary support or fire support. Change the secondary power to be more offence oriented, possibly assault bonus or movement bonus.*

* Such as The Dire Avengers have mastered their weapons to the degree that they are able to move nearly unhindered and shoot their weapons steady, regardless of speed. As part of their shooting phase, the Dire Avengers lead by their Exarch may make a running move towards their target and still shoot. Roll 2D6, choosing the highest, and move up to this distance, following all the normal rules for running, except that the unit must must move directly towards their enemy they shoot at. Distance is measured after the Dire Avengers have finished running.
Or maybe, simply, that the Dire Avengers are able to use their shooting weapons' Strength and AP characteristics in place of their normal melee characteristics.

If guardians are changed to 10 pts each, I can live with 18" S4 A2 catapults for them. Defender, Bladestorm and Shimmershield as well as changing th Dire Avenger attacks to 2 leave them as a better melee option than guardians.
Even if enhance ups the guardian stat to be WS 4 BS 4 and I 5, they would still be 1 attack each as opposed to 2 attacks each for a dire avenger plus the advantages of higher armor save, leadership, etc.

The guardian advantage is packing platforms with S6 or higher weapons making dire avengers anti-personnel only True dedicated warriors whereas guardians would be the eldar equivalent of marine tactical squads able to fit the jack-of-all trades/master of none roll to fill out an army.

Guardians are crap in combat now, they used to be good because of Outnumbering.

Tacobake wrote:Guardians are crap in combat now, they used to be good because of Outnumbering.

My point exactly, they're more of a liability.

DAaddict wrote:If guardians are changed to 10 pts each, I can live with 18" S4 A2 catapults for them. Defender, Bladestorm and Shimmershield as well as changing th Dire Avenger attacks to 2 leave them as a better melee option than guardians.
Even if enhance ups the guardian stat to be WS 4 BS 4 and I 5, they would still be 1 attack each as opposed to 2 attacks each for a dire avenger plus the advantages of higher armor save, leadership, etc.

The guardian advantage is packing platforms with S6 or higher weapons making dire avengers anti-personnel only True dedicated warriors whereas guardians would be the eldar equivalent of marine tactical squads able to fit the jack-of-all trades/master of none roll to fill out an army.

DAaddict, are Guardians really 3 points better with +1I and +1S in shooting and 18" Assault 2 instead of 24" Rapid Fire - if they lose 1 BS to get this? I ask, because the closest comparable squad I can find are IG Veterans, and they have Frag+Krak as well.

Come at that, the IG Veterans can be compared to Dire Avengers, if we assume squad sergeants are "free". This comparison, however, puts Dire Avengers cost more fairly. For 2 points more, Dire Avengers;
Lose frag+krak, 24" rapid fire
Gain 1WS, 2I, 1LD, 18" assault 2 with +1S

Regardless how we twist and turn, we're going to end up with one squad stepping on the other's toes unless the face of the squad is changed. What is clear is that Guardians in their current incarnation do not work, and that the price for Guardians either need to go down, their gear need to be improved, or their role redefined.
- Price go down leads to Eldar being Xeno-Imperial Guard with sacrificial troops.
- Gear improved means Defenders will step on Dire Avengers and Storms will need some serious rethinking
- Role defined... well this seem most likely. Regardless, you'd still need to actually cost each model fairly.

Now, with the risk of re-hashing old ideas (which we'll end up doing anyway):

Catapults remain the same.
Guardian Storm and Guardian Defenders are made distinctly separate units.
Guardian Defenders are purchased: 1 Warlock leading 5 Guardian Defenders and 1 Heavy Weapon Platform with a Shuriken Cannon for 60 points. Further 5 Guardian Defenders and 1 Heavy Weapon mounted Shuriken Cannon may be added for 35 points.
Guardian Storms are purchased: 1 Warlock leading 5 Guardian Storms of whom 1 may replace his weapons with a flamer or fusion gun for free, for 70 points. Further 5 Guardian Defenders with one extra flamer or fusion gun may be added for 45 points.
Guardian Defenders are armed with Plasma and Holo Grenades (assault and defence grenades respectively), Guardian Storm are armed with Plasma and Haywire Grenades.
(Support Weapon Platforms: one Heavy Weapon Platform per Guardian Defender squad may be upgraded to one of these for +40 points, this is armed with a Vibro Cannon and may be replaced with a Shadow Weaver for free or a D-Cannon for +10 points. May not be transported inside vehicles)

Guardian Defenders' role is their heavy weapons. The platform is changed in wording so that any Guardian may use it in place of his own weapon, this includes the support variant.
Guardian Storms' role are their... well... I don't know. They're cheaper. I don't like them at present.

Dire Avengers, similarly, would be purchased: 1 Dire Avenger Exarch leading 4 Dire Avenger Aspect Warriors for 70 points.
Dire Avengers would be armed with plasma grenades and the current Dire Avenger Shuriken Catapult

I think the Warlock powers need to be reviewed in general, and the Warlock's leadership needs to be bolstered to 9.

The differentiator between guardians and DAs, as i see it, is close combat.

Bottom line it:
Defender Guardians do, and should always, fold in close combat. DAs should not.

I think Maht's had a good idea with causing the support platform to disallow boarding a transport.

Here are my ideas for roles for defenders, storms, and DAs:
Defenders - objective sitters, fire support, warm bodies - shouldn't be near the enemy, don't have to be near the enemy - the troop choice every codex needs.
DAs - excel at dropping light infantry (4+ or worse) at range. Competent in close combat, don't go away easily - a dependable-under-fire troop.
Storms - As Defenders, but swap offensive fire for specialization and durability in CC - can take special weapons and heavier armor than defenders, but are completely ineffective at range.

Defenders - 1 plat per 5 is fine, R18 A2 S4 AP5 cats are fine - I really think this is a good baseline for the whole codex. 8 pts. No horde, please.

DAs (12ppm) - They should be better at taking down light infantry, threaten heavy infantry. R18 A3 S4 AP4, no rending. Bladestorm is now a hail of blades etc etc "all failed to hit rolls may be rerolled" - twinlinking. This also helps free them from farseer dependency.
The unit gets stubborn, exarch or no, each DA also has the catapult, a CCW, and either a pistol, or true grit.
The exarch can bring a shimmershield - 4++ CC save, and Defend - as is now.

So - DAs: If your 4+-or-worse unit gets shot at by these guys without cover, you might as well take them off the board. They also will absolutely not go away in CC, with I5 base, Defend, and possibly a shimmershield, AND stubborn, they'll stick around forever. Don't benefit from Guide anymore, but do from doom.

30 BS4 shots with rerolls to hit. If this isn't good enough to take over guardians, we can add Rending-Lite, or "all to-wound rolls from a Avenger Shuriken Catapult may be rerolled if they are failed"

Storm - not too different from now - guardian stat line, of course, trade in cats for pistols and CCWs. Can take 1 special weapon per 5, with weapons being fusion guns or flamers. 4+ armor save is normal - but they are not aspect warriors, so they lose fleet.

FETH! I just wrote out a massive post and my internet died when I posted....anyway here is the gist of it.

If enhance lets guardians have BS4 then avengers are pertty much redundant. With BS3 10 guardians with shuricannons would kill 1.7 MEQ's at under 18" where as a unit of Avengers would kill 2.5 at BS4 the guardians would kill basically the same number (exactly the same appart from a BS5 exarch vs 2 BS4 shuricannons....I mathhammered it before but I've lost that now)

If you don't let a squad with platforms go in a transport, and keep them as BS3 5+ save the difference will still be significant but Guardians will be much improved compaired to their current set up (12" range and only 1 platform).

Mahtamori wrote:+1WS and +1Sv goes a long way in current edition to receive an assault. People say "just use Scorpions as a deterrent", well... the problem is, Guardians are a liability for the Scorpions, they are much easier to kill than Dire Avengers (unless we give Guardians 4+ save, of course) and means they are free combat resolution.
Dire Avengers can, which Guardians can't, Blade Storm. This is a very notable difference, especially factoring in that Blade Storm doesn't change the weapon characteristic nor assault phase. A slightly more competent in melee Dire Avenger, which unleash +50% fire and assaults afterwards is going to be a Guardian - meaning the Guardian will have to make full use of their heavy weapon(s) to make back their points.

If platforms weren't mandatory, Guardians could be made versatile. The upgrade options for Storm and Defenders joined and the difference between the two erased. In such a case, naturally, better armour saves would strictly not be necessary - however, I do not think CCW+Pistol on a Guardian is an attractive option, but rather a Chainsword+Pistol is merited there.
(Oh, look, we're back to Guardians!)

.

A little off subject, but right now for HTH, I will take Dire Avengers over any close-combat aspect, T3 makes Dire Avengers better HTH because of shimmershield and defend. Situationally, Scorpions and Banshees are better but overall the best HTH for eldar is 2 or 3 S4 catapult shots followed by 2 or 3 S3 attacks over 1 S4 shuriken pistol shot followed by 3 to 5 S3 or 4 attacks.

Leave the guardian saves 5+ and word it (Guardians may take one Shuriken Platform for every 5 guardians) and you don't have to take the platform it is just free. I believe guardians with cats and a shuri cannon platform should be the de facto norm but nothing should force you to do it other than it is free. All special weapon and other platforms come at cost though. I would not like free flamers or fusion guns as that is just disgusting and begging for spamming. "Let's not play fire dragons in serpents but play 10-man guardians with 2 fusion guns." Not as auto-kill as dragons but now I have 5 or 6 objective holders... Still doable but don't even tempt it with same cost for 10 wounds and 2 fusion guns versus 5 wounds and 5 fusion guns.

The big problem is justifying Storms.

How do you take an Imperial Guardsman, armed with CCW+pistol, and make him worth 8 points? I think most of the people who're active in this topic can agree that 8 points is a good target to aim for, either through actual cost or through optional-but-"free" equipment.

1. Would it be better to have Storms get CCW+pistol and a 4+ save?
2. If we again consider Storms and Defenders as one and the same, would it make sense stating that the upgrade from Catapult is "Close Combat weapon, Shuriken Pistol and a dense psycho-plastic armour"
3. Is the option of borrowing Scorpions' chainswords perhaps even better, or would that intrude on them?
4. If we treat Guardian Defenders and Storms as the same unit, would the weapon upgrade options be available regardless of if CCW+pistol or catapult is chosen? Should "Guardian Storms" be allowed to carry a Bright Lance platform, and should Guardian Defenders be allowed a flamer (but for a point cost)?

Just for the record, I don't think having more units able to deal with tanks is a bad thing. I do, however, have my doubts as to how to treat Warlock powers. I'm more and more inclined towards Warlocks receiving true psycher status, LD 10 and psychic powers worth rolling for. This would lead to destructor being AP3, most likely - I'm thinking Warlocks having the offensive powers and Farseers having defensive (force multiplier) powers.

I want.... Plastic Wraith Guards of 5 -_-

Plastic Warlocks of 5

StarCanon +1 shot so its effective again

Army wide BS 4 maybe...

I dont agree with storms needing 4+ armour, they are a civilian malitia of a dying race, why would you throw them into combat with a mob of boyz? They seem to me that they cant realy have a sensible role on the battlefield that doesn't clash with their fuff.

as for the Warlock powers, I competely agree, make them require a test, but give them some "most powerful psychers in the galaxy" style powers Then again we will have the issue that whatever we do to make other units good will make the seer council too good.

@Lunahound- I couldn't agree more about the plastics but thats not really a codex issue!

Heavy 3 Starcannons is one of the many suggestions we've talked about alot and is one of the few that most of us have agreed is the best solution.

Not too keen on the ary wide BS4, but its an option, yet another option that we've talked almost to death

any other suggestions? If you can think of anything vaguely troop related I'm sure it will get talked over (at length ) pretty soon.

As far as BS 4 go, I'd rather just have an upgrade that says: "instead of a Guardian, this vehicle has an experienced Aspect crew and as such have finer shooting skill" or something to that sort. So upgrade for +1 BS.

On that note, I don't understand why Eldar don't have their own pilot aspect...it seems to me that an army relying on grav-tanks and aircrafts would have the best pilots around...

As for Guardians, I think they should do away with Storms as such, and just make Guardians be able to pick several wargear options. In an army of specialists, they are the most versatile, so it stands to reason and fluff that they can choose what wargear to have, as opposed to the Aspects that use solely their weapons of choice.

I've always thought the BS3 tanks were a bit weird too.

Anyways, I like the idea for more legit powers for warlocks (not that farseer couldn't use some boosts too). Also the boosted LD that would hopefully go with it, would make them
more respectable squad leaders for guardian squads.
As for guardian wargear heavy weapon platforms per 5 guardians is excellent, and I liked the 18" range idea for the catapults. However as for how to improve DA weapons in response, I feel like rending might be a bit OP. I can't really see anyone's basic troops having rending guns except maybe necrons. I think that making the two catapult types have the same range, but making guardian catapults rapid fire would even it out. Like the difference between boltguns and storm bolters.
As a side note, I think that DAs should get plasma grenades. As the most tactically flexible aspect they deserve em'.

@Araenion- Fire Prisms have BS4, their excuse in that case is because they have extra fancy targeting technology, I don't see why they cant employ that on all vehicles as an upgrage though. It would be easier than creating a pilot aspect or re-hashing the fluff for another aspect to incorporate them as pilots.

Tortoiseer wrote:not that farseer couldn't use some boosts

sorrywhat?! Farseer are bloody brilliant as they are

Dire Avengers vs Guardian Defenders: We have discussed around this. With the concensus of 18" A2 S4 cats, my feeling is these should be 10 pts each.

Guardian Storms vs Banshee/Scorpion/Dragons: They match all three of these sort of but they should be nothing but pale comparisons to any of the others just they are okay at all of it.
To truly be okay in HTH, they need enhance - equal WS to opponents is the only reason any idiot should pick a sword and pistol over a catapult. Armor left at 5+ means they will still die in droves.
So if left with stats as today with option to improve via Enhance, they still only generate 2 attacks.

I can handle making all eldar CCW +1 S. (Chainswords/Chainsabers/Biting Blades/etc.) The difference with a Scorpion is - as we talked before, a scorpion is a CC aspect so

WS5 BS4 S3 I5 T3 A2 Ld9 Sv 3+ with mandiblaster, 2 CCW and charge that means a scorpion packs 5 attacks at S4 with a 3+ save backing it up whereas an enhanced storm will be packing 3 attacks at S4 with a 5+ save. The WS 5 will mean the scorpion is hitting on 3+ and being hit on a 4+. The storm hits most on a 4+ and gets hit on a 4+ with enhance or 3+ without it.

Storms packing 2 fusion guns have some anti-tank but no melta bombs, exarch/aspect abilities to match dragons but they offer some flexibility of purpose.

Banshees and storms - again with improved stat line of banshees the difference is 4+ save, hitting first, 4 S3 PW attacks for banshees or 5+ save, 3 S4 non-power weapon attacks for storms plust maybe to softening flamer strikes.

A storm is not a straight tradeoff for a defender though anymore. If the defender is base 10 cost, a storm should be about 8. Even with free grenades and +1S chainswords.

I think at some point we should look at where Farseers, Warlocks, retinues and sometimes-discussed Bonesinger should fit together and their psychic rules.

The point of where to go philisophically with active and passive powers as well as who should have what and what statlines is a big way to define eldar fluff. Psychers should be a big deal for eldar but also need to leave a space for the non-psycher HQs without making them a never-played choice. Save that though for getting the storm/defender issue resolved.

I feel like DA's would do just fine if not great WHEN THEY are assaulting. Exarch with powerwep/shimshield and bladestorm. bladestorm the unit your attacking or even just shoot normally then assault with 21 attacks coming your ooponents way in assault after the fact that they just had 27 shuricat shots fired at them. That enemy unit should be done like dinner.

I don't see how giving marginal upgrades to guardian defenders warrants a 10 ppm price tag. They are woefully underpowered as it is, so improving them should bring them to what they cost now, not up their cost more.

I'm going to go out into left field here -

We could soup DAs up to elite status, and put them in the elite slot, then soup of Guardians and Storms to current DA levels (and 10-12ppm cost) and leave them as troops.

In short:

These changes are in conjunction with the army-wide fleet rule of fleet confers USR fleet, plus 2d6 choose-highest while running.

DA: ASC: R24 A3 S4 Ap4 Rending
WS4/BS4, stubborn, ccw, true grit, fleet, 4+ save
exarch:
Bladestorm: twinlinked
Defend
4++ shimmer
diresword -> Executioner (or just, +2 S)

187ish points (120 +12 (exarch) + 20 (shimmer) + 15 (executioner) + 10 (bladestorm) + 10 (defend))
For 10 guys, 30 BS4 ap4 rending, twinlinked shots, 2A base in CC, a 4++ in CC, stubborn, and an exarch with a S5 pw.

Not a troop, but you can put them in pretty much any situation and they'll be ok, as long as you don't ask them to punch a terminator in the face.

16ppm, elite slot



Defenders:
BS4, fleet Ld8 (warlock is 10)
6-12 models, 1 platform per 4, cannot embark on a transport due to the platform
cats: R18 A2 S4 Ap5

at 10ppm, and about 15-20 points per platform weapon (say 3x scatter lasers), this unit is 165 points before the warlock. For 3 BS4 scatter lasers, and 9 regular s.cat shooters. Still T3 5+.

Storms:
WS4
5-10, 1 weapon per 5, 2ccw for all, 4+ save, lose fleet.
10 ppm, 120ish points for 10 guys with 2 flamers/fusion guns, a 4+ save, 2A base in CC (at ws4)


Don't know how good of suggestions these are, but I feel like moving DAs out of troops and into elites causes a lot less overlap between roles. We can buff DA without making guardians obsolete, and buff guardians without the opposite occurring.

Is the seer council really necessary? Is the Eldar army really that starved for staying power, anti-tank or anti-MC? Maybe Farseers could be accompanied by 0-2 Warlocks, whom will follow him and join/leave any unit he joins or leaves. Maybe, if the need for Warlocks is great enough, have the Warlocks form a separate unit entirely as an Elite option. Or maybe simply detach them from Farseers and limit them to 0-1 per army.

@ BS4 vehicles: That aspect is called Eagle Pilots. In my opinion, Eagle Pilots should be the norm for all vehicles in the Heavy Support section - meaning Fire Prisms, Falcons, and Nightspinners and NOT War Walkers (since they are Fast Attack )

@ DAaddict: if the Aspect Warrior statline is improved, then it's all down to points. A Guardian with an 18" catapult and still only BS3, they are significantly worse than Dire Avengers, especially with Dire Avengers improved statline. I'd personally be against Enhance also improving ballistics skill, since that would make the ability far too powerful (we'd be looking at a cost of over 30 points, in my estimate!).

I don't think Storms will challenge Scorpions with +1S even in their current form if we also have plasma grenades for Storms. What you get for twice the points is significantly better armour save, an extra attack, one extra point of WS, I and LD (unless we improve Warlock LD).

@ Farseer / Psychic Powers: There are a few psychic powers that could use touching up. The problem is that some of them are so good that they work disproportionately - Fortune significantly increases a unit's staying power for each extra armour, Guide is odd since it is reduced in power for each secondary effect (such as twin-linking) that mimic the same, Doom is exactly like Fortune except opposite in that the higher S the less important Doom becomes.
Eldritch Storm and Mind War are the two I'd tag for moving to Warlocks.

The only problem is what to do with the powers that really does save Guardians - Conceal primarily. Embolden isn't shabby, either, but let's pretend they don't exist at the moment.
Warlock's Ld changed to 9. Warlock powers require a test, but they do not tap into the warp heavily enough that they risk Perils.
Destructor - well... is a Heavy Flamer good enough to succeed only 83% of the time?
Eldritch Storm - how about S4 Ap- instead?
Mind War - SX Ap1 Assault 1, causes instant death, ignores cover saves - replace both S and T values on the table with corresponding model's leadership value? Still allow model sniping?

I know this is treading on holy grounds, but what if Fortune instead granted an invulnerable save (4+ just to toss a number out there) instead? Would make Guardians a better target, Seer Council a worse target, and Scorpions/Wraithguards situational targets.

Ok, so Guardian Defenders.

Currently, they are pretty craptastic. They need an upgrade to BS and an upgrade to their weapons.

But, if you give them those upgrades, they're basically Dire Avengers.

So, why not just drop Guardians entirely?

Allow DA squads to have the current guardian options of Weapon Platform or Switch to pistol+CCW with special weapon upgrades. Switch all models in vehicles or jetbikes to BS4. Done.

I personally don't like it, but it seems to solve alot of our problems.

@ mahtamori:
Star Eagles - aren't they? Not sure, really.

As to the seer council, I think it needs to go away. It conflates so much of the codex that it causes huge problems. We can't make any great improvements to the warlock powers as is, because better powers in a seer-council environment are broken. Likewise, the warlock's wargear and stats have to stay mediocre-good, lest we OP the council. Also, farseers can't become too good, because that breaks the council.

Seer council should go away. It lets us give warlocks power weapons or force weapons, it lets us buff the farseer, it lets us give the farseer a force weapon (why in hell does a farseer NOT have a force weapon?). Without a seer council, warlocks appear in GJB squads, defender/storm squads, wraithguard squads, and heavy support platform squads. much easier to balance that way.

Star Eagles should be an upgrade for all vehicles, but normal for the HS vehicles, essentially as mahtamori said.

Enhance improving BS won't work, because you can give that to wraithguard and have BS5 wraithcannons.

Psychic powers need a significant shakeup, across the board. Range, effect, when they are cast, reliability in the face of psychic defense, etc etc.

Fortune to a 4++ actually changes a lot. It is useless on any unit which sits in cover - guardians or pathfinders. It is useless on a seer council as well. It's hit or miss for other stuff. Wraithguard, for instance, love current fortune turning their save from 2/3 to 8/9ths save, so they would lose that, but, they really love getting a 4++ invuln, which protects them against everything they fear - big pie plates, CC vs termies. Also - amazing on wraithlords. I think the wraithlord alone nixes a 4++ fortune - eldrad + 2 wraithlords with fortune. how, exactly, do you kill that?

The problem is, the seer council IS craftworld Ulthwe, its what makes them what they are. Its llike getting rid of wraithguard or jetbikes, it utterly castrates the craftworld's playstyle. I agree that it makes everything else work much more easily, but it makes one ot the most significant eldar craftworlds a load of guardians with a farseer.

Changing fortune to 4++ really hinders the more fragile units whilst benefiting the already momre resilliant units, which seems kind of silly IMO.

I agree with Vehicle BS upgrade, but it should be costed in a way that it isn't the blatent must have upgrade.

@Getting rid of Guardians - I couldn't dissagree more, we want a diverse and varied codex, not just to get rid of half the troop choices to make things easier

@Changing DA's to Elite- The Elite FOC slot is already very crowded, seeing as we are trying to make each and every aspect a viable choice, having another great unit to choose from makes this choice even harder, whilst leaving troops without much choice. It also akes Biel Tan lists impossible.

I think we should come to some sort of consensus on the DA's vs Guardians's point before getting stuck in with psykers.

Well, then to keep the distinction between guardians and DAs, maybe we should just keep everything as-is. Just drop the points of Guardians to 6 each. With the idea of giving Defenders more weapon platforms and Storm squads already being flamer intensive, it would make each of these squads totally reliant on their heavy or special weapon choices rather than their shuriken pistol/catapult. That's not necissarily a bad thing.

DA to put out a ton of S4 AP5 shots, Guardians to put out heavy weapon fire.

At 6ppm you would have to limit the squad sizes to stop hoard-dar armies popping up. 55 points for 5 + warlock + shuricannon platform seems very cheap.

I'm not sure about making them so cheap, it doesn't seem to sit right with the rest of the army. That said, it would be ballanced and would stop the clash between them and Avengers. I think at BS3 5++ save with 18" they would reasonable for 8ppm. It would make them more useable, and woud mean an army wouldnt need DA's for taking objectives, the would just be a better choice.

then you could get the extra 6" range for about 10 points (20 on a full squad) and they wouldnt simply be extra wounds on a big gun.

Could also go mental on platforms.

Guardian Defenders become a Devastator Light squad in troop section. You don't buy Guardians, they are just there to man the weapons which are what you purchase. One squad is 2-5 platforms, purchased at 20 points each, armed with Shuriken Cannon base.

Still leaves all those Guardian Storm models in the dry.

@ Seer Council: These aren't Ulthwe, I'd argue that Guadians are, but large amount of Warlocks in several places in the army might be. You can solve the problem by allowing more squads purchasing Warlocks.

@"Go mental on platforms"- you could have a unit of 5-10 with no platforms for cheap, then say you can upgrade any guardian to have a heavy weapon patfor at a cost of X points? for example 5 guardians + warlock - 50 points? any number of guardians may man a heavy weapons platform with shuriken cannon for 5 points (?)they can then be upgraded for x points. then you could get rid of the D-cannon and vibro cannon and just incorporate them into the guardian squad.

@seer councils: I think every non-aspect unit should be able to have a warlock and that is the case at the moment appart from rangers.

Gorechild wrote:
@seer councils: I think every non-aspect unit should be able to have a warlock and that is the case at the moment appart from rangers.

You forgot vehicles, and Harlies.

I think harlies need somthing individual, I dont think they really fit into the normal eldar scheme. They would be much better with a more specialised troupe master than just having a warlock stuck on, it would make their move through cover useless if a warlock was added.

Well you arent going have a warlock leading a squad of vypers are you its just a stupid suggestion, you know what I meant.

Gorechild wrote:I think harlies need somthing individual, I dont think they really fit into the normal eldar scheme. They would be much better with a more specialised troupe master than just having a warlock stuck on, it would make their move through cover useless if a warlock was added.

Well you arent going have a warlock leading a squad of vypers are you its just a stupid suggestion, you know what I meant.

Yeah, I knew what you meant, just giving you a hard time.

And, I actually like the idea of tossing a warlock in a vyper squad. I'm not sure how it would work (on a jetbike in the squad? replacing one of the guardian crew? his own unique vyper?), but it could open up some cool possibilities. Maybe give warlocks a power that increases armor values?

Sounds more like a job for the bonesinger idea that we've been toying with. If vypers were kept as vehicles then I cant see that having an upgrade character would really work, but if they were jetbikes then it could work, idk.

we're digressing again

warlocks could go with a vyper squad if the vypers were upgrades to GJB squads...

Removing the HS platforms from HS is a good thing. Its a crowded slot and i don't see them ever being taken unless they are no brainers (people poo-poo the wraithlord because its slow, the platforms can't move at all and fire).

Adding them to troops is ... risky, even as expensive upgrades to guardian squads. Especially since the platform is an artillery piece now. It might work if we go with a semi IG-esque thing where the guys manning the platform are a 2w model.

I prefer a semi-crappy guardians (R18 A2 S4 Ap5, 5++, BS3), with platforms (1 per 4 or 5, squad size 6-12) which cannot use a transport, over getting rid of the guardians entirely, or moving DAs to elite.

Storms are a conundrum.

Solution for the seer council: don't let warlocks take JB unless they are part of a GJB squad? People use foot-councils, but the really scary one (and the one that could lead to OPness if changes are made) is the jet-council, because of T4 and 3+ armor.

I would vote to put vypers as an upgrade to GJB instead of Warlocks with the skilled rider ability. That would make the vypers a good idea to use as an upgrade instead of a bad idea to use because as a unit of thier own because they are more fragile than a 500 year old emotionally unstable percelain vase aka they get wrecked if your opponent so much as sneezes in thier direction (for those of you that didn't get the first analogy.

Dire Avenger
WS 4 BS4 S3 I5 W1 T3 A2 Ld 9 Sv 4+ Catapult S4 18" A2 AP 5 rending
Exarch gets +1 WS,BS,I Options, Bladestorm, Defend as today.

Guardian Defender
WS3 BS3 S3 I4 W1 T3 A1 Ld 8 Sv 5+ Catapult S4 18" A2 AP5
Warlock
WS4 BS4 S3 I4 W1 T3 A2 Ld 9 Sv 4++ Pistol & Witchblade
5-15 guardians, 1 platform per 5. 1 free Shuriken Cannon per 5.

With this configuration ther is not really much separating guardians from dire avengers... If I take the premise that the Dire Avenger is priced correctly, this flavor of guardian defender is still very close in shooting capability. 10 DAs for 120 15 guardians for 120 at current cost. Plus 3 shruriken cannons. So without bladestorm 20 S4 shots averaging 13.3 hits versus 24 S4 shots and 9 S6 shots. 12 S4 hits and 4.5 hits at S6. This tells me guardians are underpriced. The lower save of guardians is offset by the fact you are fielding 15 wounds versus 10. So a cost of 9 or 10 per guardian is the right call or say goodbye to dire avengers ever getting played.

The balancing factor of warlocks versus exarch abilities, their cost and modifiers is what defines the difference between the two. As far as Eldar balancing with other codexes - (my assumptioin here is we are not building the god-like race super codex) we don't want to make eldar troop choices so good that you are forced to make elite aspects better and end up spiraling eldar into a super-fluffy high priced army.

@ proposed 24" range dire avengers. No, simply it would be the best weapon in the game on a base troop and outrange SMs as well as others. 18" means the troop choice needs to put themselves at risk of jump infantry and bike assaults. 24" means the only fear in life is vanguard vets and landraider assaults. Not saying you can't do it but then DAs are not 12 pt troops. I don't want to make guardians or DAs too good in and of themselves - thus cost too much - thus in a standard game be choosing troop-short or never field an elite choice or restrict my list because I just made my base troops so good that they are costed at 18 points to fully justify the fluff built into their game stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trying to avoid addressing psychic abilities, warlocks, farseers and indirectly other HQs. (again) The problem with Eldar is there is such synergy based on psychic abilities, it really affects a lot of the arguments we are trying to iron out on guardians, councils, etc.

DAaddict: I think you're stuck in single-dimensional thinking. The Dire Avengers you compare the Guardians to are aeons better in melee than those Guardians, even without upgrades. They last longer, kill more than twice as fast, usually kill first, and are less likely to lose wounds - and therefore combat - due to poor armour save.

Also, if that comparison has Dire Avengers hint that Guardians are underpriced, then compare Guardians to other armies. 8 points for 18" S4 AP5 Assault 2 isn't all that unlikely - so what should this tell you? Well, maybe that Dire Avengers is overpriced. Or maybe that they're not meant to only shoot. Simply put, another 6" on the Shuriken Catapult can't be worth 3 points! And that's being generous when comparing to Termagants.
Couple in their already good shooting with over-loaded shooting from Blade Storm, and then charge the next phase. Not to mention that 15 Guardians can't be transported, but 10 Dire Avengers can. Like I wrote in the opening paragraph of this post; as you present them they are a hybrid unit, not a shooter unit.

I'm still not certain whether free Shuricannons are justified if the Guardians actually justify their points, so I wouldn't count them if making comparisons like that.

@Councils- Gwyidion makes a good point, if the warlock entry doesn't allow them to take a jetbike, but it then says in the GJB section that a unit of jetbikes may be joined by a warlock on a jetbike for X points then many of the problems around the seer council will dissapear. Footcouncils are good, but not OP like the Jetcouncil are. Then we have freedom to improve warlocks/spiritseers/bonesingers/farseers to make them as psychicly awesome as they should be. Anyway, after thye troops are sorted I think HQ would be the next logical thing to sort out.

For DA's now, 12ppm is perfect. This means we can either keep them as they are and work around them or buff them in some way and increase their points and risk messing up a perfectly ballanced and effective unit. I think the best choice is to make Defender Guardians worthy of their 8ppm price tag or possibly a 9ppm cost (you don't want them to be too close to DA's or you'll have made civilians as good as the specialist fighting force.). If you get the unit itself (no weapon platforms or anything) to be worth of an 8 point price then you can just say +5 points for a shuriken cannon platform or +10 for a scatter laser ect. Then you have the choice to take them in a transport or not.

Also, if we limit the council to be 3-5 warlocks + farseer, its going to be much, much harder to make it a broken unit, just because it will only have - at most - 18 wounds (thats if warlocks become 3w ICs, which i'm pretty sure they won't). More than likely 8 wounds.

Personally i woudn't mind if they brought back the craftworld book, the eldar codex hasn't been the same without it...

Farmer wrote:Personally i woudn't mind if they brought back the craftworld book, the eldar codex hasn't been the same without it...

Well, they've tried to incorporate everything from the craftworld book into the main codex. Jetbikes can be troops, Pathfinders are an option, Spirit Seers are an option, Wraithguard can be troops. The only things missing are the Black Guardians, making aspects other than DA as troops, and all the super-awesome HQ choices (a true Seer Council, Court of the Young King).

I'd say it's an adequate job. I'd like it if they brought back more specialization between craftworlds, but I can live without it.

Grakmar wrote:

Farmer wrote:Personally i woudn't mind if they brought back the craftworld book, the eldar codex hasn't been the same without it...

Well, they've tried to incorporate everything from the craftworld book into the main codex. Jetbikes can be troops, Pathfinders are an option, Spirit Seers are an option, Wraithguard can be troops. The only things missing are the Black Guardians, making aspects other than DA as troops, and all the super-awesome HQ choices (a true Seer Council, Court of the Young King).

I'd say it's an adequate job. I'd like it if they brought back more specialization between craftworlds, but I can live without it.

The special rules though...not exactly great as they used to be.

Random thought of the day: Exarchs as psychers.

LD10, one of the Exarch powers become psycher power. Below are some examples. Note: This has a success rate of 11/12 and an equal chance of PotW a standard Exarch as a Gets Hot! (1/18)
Banshee, War Shout: Used in the assault phase, at the Exarch's initiative. Any hostile model within 2" of the Exarch has their weapon skill reduced to 1 for the rest of the assault phase. (Difference: higher chance of success, rolls on the Exarch's LD rather than the enemy's)
Dire Avenger, Blade Storm: Used at any time the Exarch or his squad is going to shoot. The Exarch and his squad count as firing one additional shot from each shuriken weapon. (Difference: does not prevent use or shooting next turn, is not limited to Aspect Warriors only)

Could probably device more, but you get the gist of it.

I like the idea of exarchs as psykers but I think they should have passive psychic powers.
So true psykers would be: farseers, warlocks, bonesingers(?), pheonix lords (since they're super-exarchs)
and semi-psykers would be: exarchs and maybe autarchs (could be a telepathic orders type system)
That does mean that exarch powers would be slightly worse (no Bladestorm every turn) but there is also no danger of the power being negated.

I think seer councils should be 3-5 warlocks. Then they can have jetbikes and good offensive psychic powers without being OP.

Exarchs as Psykers could work really well. Increase the power of their abilites, but require them to take tests. But, I'd say leave them at their current Ld value. Ld 10 is reliable for an every turn Bladestorm, and it has a major impact on the rest of the squad.

As for making them passive powers, that'd make no actual difference in game (other than make them vulnerable to anti-psyker attacks). But, that's actually how I picture their exarch powers working now

Mahtamori wrote:DAaddict: I think you're stuck in single-dimensional thinking. The Dire Avengers you compare the Guardians to are aeons better in melee than those Guardians, even without upgrades. They last longer, kill more than twice as fast, usually kill first, and are less likely to lose wounds - and therefore combat - due to poor armour save.

Also, if that comparison has Dire Avengers hint that Guardians are underpriced, then compare Guardians to other armies. 8 points for 18" S4 AP5 Assault 2 isn't all that unlikely - so what should this tell you? Well, maybe that Dire Avengers is overpriced. Or maybe that they're not meant to only shoot. Simply put, another 6" on the Shuriken Catapult can't be worth 3 points! And that's being generous when comparing to Termagants.
Couple in their already good shooting with over-loaded shooting from Blade Storm, and then charge the next phase. Not to mention that 15 Guardians can't be transported, but 10 Dire Avengers can. Like I wrote in the opening paragraph of this post; as you present them they are a hybrid unit, not a shooter unit.

I'm still not certain whether free Shuricannons are justified if the Guardians actually justify their points, so I wouldn't count them if making comparisons like that.

Not one dimensional in thought just in discussion - we have tossed around free platforms, reduced cost platforms, pulse laser platforms, modifying warlocks, black guardians with built-in improved WS and/or BS. Guardians with an 18" S4 A2 AP5 cats to compare to different armies, are comparable to devourer armed gaunts. They get one more shot but crappier armor and both better(synapse) and worse (alone) leadership. So mister one-dimensional will through out all the best options that have been tossed around for guardians...

Black Guardians +2 pt upgrade increasing WS & BS. Save 4+. 18" A2 S4 catapults. Free shuriken cannon. Leadership 10 warlocks and take your pick of 4+ cover save Conceal or +1WS/BS/I Enhance.

Cool the modified statline of 12 guardians
WS 4 BS 4 S3 I4 A1 W1 T3 Ld 8(10) Sv: 4+(4++) S4 18" A2 18 S4 shots and 9 S6 shots with a warlock leading the way with conceal. If guardians are base 8, and the conceal guardian costs you 40, we are talking 160 points for all of this.

10 DAs w Defend, BS, SS & PW Exarch:
WS 4 BS 4 S3 I5 A2 W1 T3 Ld 9 Sv 4+ (5++ HTH only) S4 18" A2 18S4 shots or 27 S4 shots with bladestorm.
We are talking 177 for this.

I am saying Dire Avengers - versus other codexes troop choices are priced about right but with the sample guardian - with all the changes we have talked about is 20 points cheaper, has a better leadership, 3 more wounds and a 4++ cover save. Unless I want to present a boat-load of wave serpents, the guardians are the better option and that is with 10 point guardians! Take them back to BS 3 and the cost goes down 24 points. With 3 platforms, arguably still better than the DAs and now 40 points cheaper. Drop the save back to 5+ and because of the improved Conceal, the guardians are still a good buy for 40 less points. In my one dimensional way, it appears all the improvements to guardians has made dire avengers a non-option. So you say improve the dire avengers? Sure we can do that but IMO, Dire Avengers are way superior to all the Elite eldar options so now you need to improve those.

Watch out or we will have 20 point base howling banshees because we have 16 point dire avengers because we have do-it-all guardians for 10 or less. Of course there is always the option that we improve all the eldar options, keep the costs cheap and instigate a major round of codex creep with the forced update of Codex:SM.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing Eldar and hope we get many of the options(wishes) we are talking about, I am just saying that if Guardians are the baseline Eldar and you make it too effective in relation to the other options, you will end up with all guardian armies. (Good for GW as they will sell lots of guardians) Upgrade the other options too much and you will price the Eldar into very small armies. (Not good for GW if I don't buy stuff because I have too much.) Don't increase the costs to match all the new abilities and the balance of 40K will shift to the Eldar to such a degree that GW will be forced into
uber-marines and super-orks etc in the next round of codexes.

Sure DA's are better at HTH than the guardians (based on Defend, Shimmershield and the improved A stat) but that DA attack stat is not enough to make me want to build an army of Eldar for HTH based on it. It might be fun but it is not superior to other codex close-combat options. I would rather say, the improved firepower of the guardians is going to make me go down a pure firepower route in building my army. Guardians - as we have optioned- are more flexible to multiple threats because of their platforms and can actually stand up better to enemy firepower by virtue of a 4++ cover save.

Hmm, DAaddict, if anyone suggests Guardians having all the things we've discussed I'll give that person a friendly whack on the head (metaphorically speaking) for being a bit daft. My comment regarding one-dimensional thinking was not regarding not taking every possible upgrade possible, but rather that when comparing two units one should take as much as possible into account - i.e. not just compare the shooting phase (Gants have Move Through Cover, speaking of which).

I, too, do not wish for Guardians to become too good, but I discuss a lot of things, often not in relation to each other. For instance, I do not think Black Guardian (BS upgrade, specifically) is even on the table due to what it'll do to the heavy weapons. 18" range catapults will shift the focus of the Guardians to be more ranged, meaning that it precludes heavier armour in favour of more mobile warfare becoming possible.
Simply put, some changes just aren't compatible unless we are designing Space Marine level units.

Regarding DA being better in melee: it doesn't really matter if you build your army around being in melee or not, there's some armies which will just get there anyway, and then it's good to have something that can fight back, while other armies will simply out-shoot you and therefore it's better to move in to melee and smash them Tau's face.
It's about flexibility, which incidentally is a bit of a touchy subject on this specific troop

My personal preference is to keep Guardian units small, even though their armour might be on the craptastic side, and to have the heavy weapons lose their mandatory crew. This would mean strictly 5-10 models, with X amount of heavy weapons which are usable in place of catapults. The hand-held weapons would be mainly secondary, but if you're spending more than a symbolic amount on the crew (i.e. more than for 2 Guardians), then they better be able to use their weapons without auto-dying the next turn (that's not the Eldar way - the Eldar way is to auto-die if you make a single mistake).
So, for the sake of argument.
Guardians. Current statline and gear. 18" catapults. 5-10 unit size. Warlock powers can not upgrade shooting competence and Warlocks can't use platforms. Maybe, just maybe, one free Shuricannon. 8 points per Guardian. Still sound like a 10 point model? I'm not a huge fan of defensive grenades in any Eldar army of any kind, but possibly plasma grenades.

@ balthydes: Like Grakmar I'd say having their psychic powers be passive would only mean that Exarchs can guide Wraithlords around better. I'd also prefer even smaller seer councils with Warlocks being true psychers.
The biggest difference here is that Farseers have 3+ protection against PotW, Warlocks would have low{4+,4+}, and Exarchs would have none. Essentially, if an Exarch were to get a power that's R12" S8 AP2 Assault 1 melta, then that power would cost about what a Fusion Gun with Gets Hot! would cost on that same Exarch.

Maybe I just like rolling those odds, but... well...

DAaddict wrote:
Black Guardians +2 pt upgrade increasing WS & BS. Save 4+. 18" A2 S4 catapults. Free shuriken cannon. Leadership 10 warlocks and take your pick of 4+ cover save Conceal or +1WS/BS/I Enhance.

Cool the modified statline of 12 guardians
WS 4 BS 4 S3 I4 A1 W1 T3 Ld 8(10) Sv: 4+(4++) S4 18" A2 18 S4 shots and 9 S6 shots with a warlock leading the way with conceal. If guardians are base 8, and the conceal guardian costs you 40, we are talking 160 points for all of this.

10 DAs w Defend, BS, SS & PW Exarch:
WS 4 BS 4 S3 I5 A2 W1 T3 Ld 9 Sv 4+ (5++ HTH only) S4 18" A2 18S4 shots or 27 S4 shots with bladestorm.
We are talking 177 for this.

Idea 1- That would enable you to have BS/WS 5 Guardians, it's completely stupid.

Idea 2- You've just made DA's so redundent that GW just as well stop making the boxes

Idea 3- meaning (going by the current point cost) without bladestorm the DA's are 2 points more expensive, and worse than guardians.


@Psyker Exarchs- This could work, but would depend on the armys psychic defence, you dont want null zone completely crippling your entire army as soon as they get in range to shoot.

@DA Assaults- I agree that they should be abe to hold their own in combat, especially after a turn or two of shuri-killing. But you dont want to make them so competant that you can hop out a wave serpent, blade storm, charge and beat anything other than say a squad of fire warriors. If its getting to the point that they can shoot assaut and hold their own and win against MEQ's then somthing isnt right.

Well, here's the line of thought regarding psychers. I'll apologise in advance for using Dungeons and Dragon comparisons.

Farseer: army multiplier, focuses on defensive/buffing, diviner/enchanter.
Warlock: offensive caster, evoker/necromancer.
Exarch: very limited to a single optional psychic power, low defence against failures, no real common theme. Warrior/sorceror.

The greatest change here is that Warlock psychic powers would go away. No more Conceal, no more Embolden. Warlocks would inherit Mind War and Eldritch Storm from Farseers. Farseers could possibly inherit Conceal in an improved form.

Farseer: Able to cast one power, knows two with upgrade to be able to use more. Base cost increased to 75-80 points or there about. Similar to Librarians and other newer psychers.
Warlock: Able to use one power, selected from a list of: Destructor (clsoe range AOE), Mind War (longer range, single), Eldritch Storm (longer range AOE).
Exarchs: One, potent, Exarch ability buffed to warrant the LD check.

So, question two regarding this: how important do you feel the Warlock psychic powers are to Guardians in general and the army identity specifically, if Warlocks were migrated to be true psychers.

Note: this change makes handling Wraithsight a lot easier.

At the very least I feel that Warlocks need a bump in power, give them aspect warrior/exarch stats. WS5-I5-A2 at the least
Give Witchblades Rending? Not quite a power weapon but a lil more deadly

It would be nice to see them move into a minor psycher role, let them keep their warlock power table but also have an Eldar minor psychic power table too. It would certainly help spread the cost around as opposed to having all your psychic punch in one IC who can get PF'd in the face

Gorechild wrote:

DAaddict wrote:
Black Guardians +2 pt upgrade increasing WS & BS. Save 4+. 18" A2 S4 catapults. Free shuriken cannon. Leadership 10 warlocks and take your pick of 4+ cover save Conceal or +1WS/BS/I Enhance.

Cool the modified statline of 12 guardians
WS 4 BS 4 S3 I4 A1 W1 T3 Ld 8(10) Sv: 4+(4++) S4 18" A2 18 S4 shots and 9 S6 shots with a warlock leading the way with conceal. If guardians are base 8, and the conceal guardian costs you 40, we are talking 160 points for all of this.

10 DAs w Defend, BS, SS & PW Exarch:
WS 4 BS 4 S3 I5 A2 W1 T3 Ld 9 Sv 4+ (5++ HTH only) S4 18" A2 18S4 shots or 27 S4 shots with bladestorm.
We are talking 177 for this.

Idea 1- That would enable you to have BS/WS 5 Guardians, it's completely stupid.

Idea 2- You've just made DA's so redundent that GW just as well stop making the boxes

Idea 3- meaning (going by the current point cost) without bladestorm the DA's are 2 points more expensive, and worse than guardians.


@Psyker Exarchs- This could work, but would depend on the armys psychic defence, you dont want null zone completely crippling your entire army as soon as they get in range to shoot.

@DA Assaults- I agree that they should be abe to hold their own in combat, especially after a turn or two of shuri-killing. But you dont want to make them so competant that you can hop out a wave serpent, blade storm, charge and beat anything other than say a squad of fire warriors. If its getting to the point that they can shoot assaut and hold their own and win against MEQ's then somthing isnt right.

Go back through the preceding discussion of guardians in earlier pages of this thread. Idea 1, 2, 3 have all been raised, argued for, and to some point agreed on. My point was not these are the guardians I want but that our arguments often get too one-dimensional. (LOL, the reason I posted it in the first place.) If all those enhanced guardian options would somehow make the new codex, yes, DAs would collect dust and we would all be fielding WS 5, BS5 guardians. (With guide and doom making guardians almost auto hit.) Viewing changes to guardians in vacuum makes for this brokeness.

Mahtamori wrote:Well, here's the line of thought regarding psychers. I'll apologise in advance for using Dungeons and Dragon comparisons.

I've always felt that Warlocks perform the role of a paladin, buffing the squad and being a force multiplier. Translated into 40k game terms? Including minor psychic powers that give the squad Preferred Enemy or +1A or something along those lines

DAaddict wrote:
Go back through the preceding discussion of guardians in earlier pages of this thread. Idea 1, 2, 3 have all been raised, argued for, and to some point agreed on. My point was not these are the guardians I want but that our arguments often get too one-dimensional. (LOL, the reason I posted it in the first place.) If all those enhanced guardian options would somehow make the new codex, yes, DAs would collect dust and we would all be fielding WS 5, BS5 guardians. (With guide and doom making guardians almost auto hit.) Viewing changes to guardians in vacuum makes for this brokeness.

Sorry, I missunderstood what you were saying I've been talking about guardians since my first post on page two of this thread, so I sort of know what ideas have been thrown around

Almost all of the idea's that have been suggest would work, its just the combinations of the ideas that you put in the 3 points would be insane.

@ Guardians: I think the earliest agreement we had was the modest 4+ armour save and more weapons platforms. Personally, I think platforms would have to be discounted a bit to make the prices accurate for the goal of 8 points.

@ Tyrolean: The Witchblades are highly effective. Warlocks are, possibly, some of the best units the Eldar army has. Not only are they durable, but their weapons are absolute monsters versus high toughness models and especially vehicles (which they do not seldom hit automatically against rear armour for higher strength than anything else in the FOC). That their LD stat need improving, and maybe a bit more weight on their psychic powers could make them and the army more interesting.
Also, D&D Paladins aren't buffers Very few of their abilities actually buffed others, and were more often better spent on the Paladin herself.

Changes to warlocks depends entirely on the changes made to the seer council, else we OP the council.

Also, I think a 4+ armor on guardians is folly. They get a 4+ cover from 90% of terrain anyway, just leave them at 5+.

I think the biggest issue I have with exarchs being psykers is nullification. One of the reasons war shout is maligned currently is that it is not at all dependable. The vast majority of exarchs (all of them except the DR exach) operate at close range to the enemy, which is more often than not in range of a psychic hood. To pay points for an exarch power, take the test, and then 50%ish of the time have it nullified.... i wouldn't spend those points.

Proliferation of psychic powers in the eldar codex is fine, as long as we take into account the fact that there is a similar proliferation of psychic defense in other codexes. One of the reasons that the JB seer council is considered a '2nd rate' deathstar is that if fortune is nullified, the council goes down, and everyone and their brother has good psychic defense now.

If the eldar army becomes more psychic, we need a way to bypass defense, or all of our psykers will be unreliable, and when something is unreliable, it generally isn't used very often on the tabletop.

Idea!

Farseer power. Stability and Meditation. If successfully used, any friendly model within 12" of the Farseer may use psychic powers without being negatively affected by external sources. This psychic power may not be hindered or negated by external sources.

(Actually, my first idea was that any enemy model within range which had e.g. Psychic Hood or SitW would take a perils of the warp and have those abilities or items shut down for an entire turn)

@ Mahtamori- Whoops my bad I prolly meant clerics Our Pally gets stolen by meanlocks and then we have to stage an "Oh gak oh gak oh gak!" rescue attempt.

Now that I think about it, 2A may be too much. Maybe just a WS/I/LD boost and more warlock powers.
In regards to Eldar bypassing psychic defenses, warlock's Embolden power already allow a Farseer to reroll a failed psychic test, per the FAQ. Maybe 2 warlocks with Embolden within 6" of the farseer allow an auto cast, double 1's still causes Perils.

LunaHound wrote:I want.... Plastic Wraith Guards of 5 -_-

Plastic Warlocks of 5

StarCanon +1 shot so its effective again

Army wide BS 4 maybe...

Pretty strange how DE can fire better then Eldar, might be the drugs they are on.

A possibility to maintain the warlocks councils is to make these lesser warlocks with the squad-leading warlocks as a middle ground and farseers as the best.

Something like this:

Warlock council: Stat line as today. Passive abilities only.

Lead warlocks: Ld 9. 1 passive and 1 active ability.

Farseers: Ld 10. 2 passive and 1 active ability.

Lead Farseers( Eldrad) Ld 10. 2 Passive and 2 active abilities.

Warlock
Passive: Enhance, Embolden, Conceal, Spiritseer
Active: Destructor, Mindwar
(Figuring let a medium warlock have mindwar - it would be at Ld9 so not as effective as Farseer doing the same.)

Farseer:
Passive: Fortune, Doom, Guide
(Not really passive but enhancers rather than attack spells)
Active: Mind War, Eldritch Storm

I am sure more abilities could be added and abilities altered but the basic Warlocks of the councils are not packing anything but passive warlock abilities so embolden for the farseer and leadership roles, enhance to make the squad great in HTH and perhaps spiritseer so they can more loosely lead on wraithlords and wraithguard. No more destructor spam but if someone wants to pack a somewhat resilient HTH unit, the council still fits the bill W/O becoming overpowered. The cost should be the prohibition but right now as a saim hann player, it is more useable than glass swords like Shining Spears.

@ Warlock: Here's another tangent. Warlocks are simply bodyguards for any Eldar non-PL HQ. Mandatory 2, count as retinue, does not prevent IC joining squads and Warlocks will simply always be in the same squad the IC is in. This would reduce Seer Council's impact significantly, increase average price on HQ, protect the HQ more, but not make Warlocks completely tied to having a Farseer.
This is just a random thought, though, and wouldn't be compatible with extensive Warlock psycher improvement.

@ DAaddict: Interesting idea. Naturally, Mind War and Eldritch Storm must be fixed regardless of what we do, but Mind War at LD9 base is silly. I'd say sniper attack that does 1 wound with only invulnerable saves allowed. Eldritch Storm simply +1S?
What would Spiritseer do? +6" Wraithsight negation isn't all that hot...

Farmer wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I want.... Plastic Wraith Guards of 5 -_-

Plastic Warlocks of 5

StarCanon +1 shot so its effective again

Army wide BS 4 maybe...

Pretty strange how DE can fire better then Eldar, might be the drugs they are on.

An Eldar who isn't a competent warrior can be fairly successful member of the Eldar community, a Dark Eldar who aren't a competent warrior can be a fairly successful skull ornament in yonder crevice.

I was thinking the other day about how the Eldar psychic powers really need to be amped up. Both to come more into line with fluff and be more appropriately matched with armies like SW.

Now granted, I haven't hammered out any specific mechanics, but general ideas that I'd like to see:

Illusion -
This power reflects a Farseer's ability to manipulate the mind of the enemy, the warp, or reality around him. He creates the illusion that there are more units present than there really are. It is a psychological weapon that can be as useful as traditional firearms or swords.

If a Farseer has taken this, they may use this power at deployment phase. The Eldar player may place 1 troop unit that matches any other troop unit purchased. If that troop unit comes in as a reserve, the duplicate "illusion" unit enters in the same way. This "illusion unit" can't shoot and will vanish if it attempts to charge. If an enemy unit charges it, the charge will fail and the the "illusion unit".
(I was initially inspired by the old DE mandrake models, though they worked a bit differently).

Confusion -
A farseer or warlock again distorts the mind of the enemy or the landscape to confuse their enemies.

The farseer/wl may target any unit on the table, if the psychic test passes, and the targetted unit attempts to move in the subsequent turn, the opponent must roll a scatter die and move the unit full speed in that direction, stopping only at table edges, impassible terrain, or if they collide with another unit. If 'hit' is rolled, the unit must still move in the direction the arrow marker points.

Psychic Storm - Self explanatory in terms of description.
No LOS required, Str 7, AP 4 Large Blast.

Bone Forest -
Though Bonesingers are most adept at this, this has been an ability exercised by other Eldar psychics. Though it takes great concentration a Farseer can weave warp energies into a forest of razor sharp wraithbone upon the battlefield

If the psychic model passes their psychic test, they may place a large blast template on the field within their LOS and within 24" of the casting model. The area under this template is now dangerous terrain. It does not, however block line of sight for any models.

Weaken Resolve - The targetted non-vehicle unit's leadership is reduced by 5 (to a minimum of 1) until the Eldar player's next turn.

Imbue - The Eldar psychic not only has the ability the inspire and guide his brethren's hearts and minds but also their weapons. A Farseer may engulf a units weapons in a psychic flame that is capable of slicing through the toughest armor or hide.
Every model in a targetted unit may use their CCW as a powerweapon for that turn, whether they are already engaged in assault, charge, or are charged in the opponent's subsequent turn. If a model in the unit doesn't have a CCW (say, for example, warp spiders) then they are unaffected by this ability. This ability may only be used once per game by the Eldar army.

Master Psyker - If an opponent uses a psychic power, the farseer may use that same power once at some point later in the game. This ability may only be exercised once.



Thoughts?

My ideas for psykers.

Farseers are the preeminent eldar psyker, to put it in a comprehensible comparison, librarians are doing psychic arithmetic, farseers are doing multivariate differential calculus. Farseers should be powerful, they should be expensive, they should be nothing but psykers (more ineffective in combat than they are today) and their powers should be completely uncounterable.

psychic powers throughout the rest of the codex should be fairly normal. If warlock powers become active, they should receive a boost. If exarch powers become psyker powers, they should receive a huge boost.

@Spiff. Illusion looks cool, but given that its a psychic power I'm not sure how its supposed to work during deployment and you can't target units which aren't on the battlefield. Its similar to one of the Eldar Apocalypse assets and I definitely think it has potential, just needs some work to make it viable. The biggest issue with it is that it would require additional models to represent the illusion unit. Perhaps change it so that the first shot at the target unit is automatically discounted and it is automatically moved 6" in any direction you want. Gives you a limited JSJ ability and would really make people careful about which units they fire with first (if you made it AOE from the Farseer and cancel after use rather than specific target, otherwise its too easy to counter).

I suggest making Confusion cause the target unit to have to pass a Ld check for every action they wish to make (move, shoot or assault). If they fail then something random happens.

Psychic Storm probably needs a range (36"/48" probably) but no LOS is fine. Its basically a toned down Orbital Strike which you can use multiple times.

Bone Forest is pretty strange and not particularly useful imo. I expect Bonesingers to be in the next codex in any case, so it could be power specific to them. Give them a repair/regrowth for vehicles and Wraithguard/Lords (maybe FNP?) and a low level offensive power like that and they should be good to go.

Weaken Resolve is also good (except you need a different name, its already a Imperial power) but could easily be tweaked a bit, it doesn't need to be a staight Ld5 given the PBS version can drop you to Ld2. Combined with Confusion you would basically neutralise a unit though.

Imbue is pretty over powered despite effecting only a couple of units. It makes Scorpions pretty crazy and far superior to Banshees as they can now take on MEQ without breaking a sweat. Storm Guardians become pretty crazy for their points, as do Harlies and Councils if the power weapon buff applies to their weapons as well.

Master Psyker seems more like an upgrade than an actual power. I would rather it let the Farseer cast a single power which can't be blocked by a Hood etc tbh (one use only is viable), using other armies powers is a bit strange for one and could lead to some rather broken combos.

My thinking is that Farseers should be the ultimate buff casters in the game, they focus on divination and manipulating decisions to reach specific outcomes rather than tearing things apart with their brains. Their offensive capabilities should be fairly limited (Mind War is fine) but they should be able to buff friendly units and debuff multiple enemy units. Warlocks should get Ld9 (10 for a character Warlock maybe) and a wide variety of offensive spells to balance things out. Currently we can get re-rolls to hit with shooting, re-rolls to wound and re-rolled failed armour saves. There is definitely room for a power which gives re-rolls to hit in combat, perhaps some form of speed buff (re-roll run rolls, move/shoot/move, run and shoot?) as well as a wide range of debuffs which target enemy units. Aside from Mind War the only other offensive powers I think the Farseer should have is some kind of psychic push (like Lash but straight away from the Farseer) and maybe Eldritch Storm (as it is now, fairly weak). If the Warlock changed to a purely offensive based caster then the Farseer should probably get a powered up version of Conceal (cover units within 12"?), Embolden (auto rally? pass all morale/fearless?) and Enhance (Furious Charge?) in exchange.

I would like to see Warlocks available as an HQ or Elites choice, 3-5 2W (or 3-10 1W) Ld9 models which attach to squads ala Wolf Guard. This works better than making them all independent characters like BA Priests as otherwise you could make massive JetCouncils, 15 2W Warlocks which are all separate units in combat would be an absolute nightmare even without Fortune. Elites would probably be better, otherwise the army would have no clear leader unless you keep them as they are atm so that they require a Farseer to field and don't actually take up a slot (which is a bad idea imo, really limits how often you will see them used). You could limit the squads they are able to attach to I guess, but I don't really have too many issues with a Warlock joining an Aspect unit if they are limited to offensive powers (obviously Enhance etc in an Aspect unit would be a bit broken). I would suggest making two levels of each power, a lower one which you can auto cast like they can atm and a more powerful one which they have to pass a test to use (with Ld9). Destructor stays as it is, with the more powerful version getting +1S and AP. Eldritch Storm again as it is atm with a more powerful version similar to Spiffs version above. An active power to make their witchblades power weapons or cause ID would also be good.
If you leave them as 1W Elites/Retinue then I really think some form of High Warlock/lesser Farseer is needed as HQ. Eldar are missing a 2W HQ choice and while not the end of the world, it is fairly obvious how to fix it.

I do like the idea of Exarchs getting psychic powers as well. For each Aspect I would aim for two passive/always on abilities like they have atm and a single more powerful ability which requires a psychic test to use. Being able to be blocked by psychic defense isn't the end of the world, for one thing its going to mean that every tournament list around is going to have to try and fit some in. Having said that some form of upgrade which limits the effectiveness of psychic defense would definitely be helpful, probably an upgrade for a Farseer.

I'm slowly updating my fandex list to put everything together, but... exarchs with psychic powers just doesn't feel right. They are left too exposed to Perils in the Warp, and giving out Ghost Helms to everyone feels wrong.

Warlock psychic powers could work, even on Leadership 9 (same probability as 2+ roll to use them). I can't say I'm missing the Warlock passive powers, but the Farseer powers look a bit messed up. Maybe they could be recycled in the Farseer, specifically Embolden and Conceal.

My current Guardians also feel a bit weird. They're currently able to take platforms so they become artillery, but this makes the unit odd. Artillery pieces are very vulnerable, but at the same time a very large unit of Guardians can purchase a relatively cheap Shuriken Cannon in order to get a virtual 3+ FNP for approximately one round of shooting at the expense of not being able to take a transport.
I'm much more content with their gear and other options:
* Warlock is squad leader, decent psycher at LD9 (not too unlike Psychic Battle Squad in terms of success rate)
* Guardian Storm and Guardian Defenders have merged. This means that Storm can take and use platforms, but if they've got one of those things with them they can't run.
* Storm kit is Pistol+chain sword (+1S, +1A), Defender kit is Shuicat (18" range)
* Guardians cost a conservative 8 points. Base cost of a minned squad is relatively high with nearly half cost invested in the Warlock.
* Psychic powers are: MEQ roaster, S4 large blast, and single model sniper (no to hit necessary, LD used instead of S or T).
* Flamer and fusion gun may be bought by one per five models.
* One platform may buy a support weapon instead.

@Mahtamori

I'd suggest they don't become artillery, just keep them basically the same as the are now. Say they are simply markers that are used when drawing LOS when firing but cannot have LOS draw to them when enemy units are firing at them. Then any guardian in coherency with the platform may fire it instead of firing their normal weapon.

@Exarch psychic powers- I don't know if it would work really. Its a really good idea but I don't see how to ake it work in a way that wont render the unit useless if they are near any sort of psychic defence.

The revised powers over all look pretty decent though. We don't want to make it so that it is really hard to keep track on loads of different buffs and debuffs. When it get confusing and you forget all of whats going on you can end up loosing games because you spent so many points on upgrades but end up forgetting some each turn because there is so much going on. Its also a complete brain melter for any non eldar player you go up against. Things run more smoothly when its just a few things that you have to remember and are able to keep track of.

Psychic Buffs - Guide, Doom, Fortune, Runes of Witnessing, Embolden, Enhance, Conceal, Spiritseer

Psychic Debuffs - Runes of Warding

Psychic Attacks - Mind War, Eldritch Storm, Destructor

If you compare the powers/items that farseers and warlocks have compared to other races, Eldar already have the best buffs of any other race. Marines have the 5++ save and initiative bonus and a number of personal buffs but nothing that comes close the the force multiplier that fortune, doom and guide do for the eldar.

Psychic debuffs - eldar trail marines and tyrannids by far.

Psychic attacks - as of today the eldar do not match up well to SM or CSM for anything near to the effectiveness of these races. Even the Tyrannids are better.

I would like to see the buffs of the eldar be enhanced perhaps even adding some personal buffs. The attacks all need some form of improvement with the exception of destructor. What they don't need is really more attack spells. Debuffs are maybe best left alone.

The easiest change is making the farseer able to cast multiples of buffs and one attack spell in a turn. With the other new codexes, librarians and some tyrannids can cast multiple spells and we are not talking named characters. So I would like to see farseers increase in base cost but auto include Runes of Warding, Runes of Witnessing and Spirit Stones.

Perhaps an active ability that turns their weapon into a power weapon - maybe even extend it to warlocks. Still keeping the singing spear/witchblade line but temporarily making it a power weapon.

Been thinking of a psychic power which essentially makes the weapon a force weapon, but naturally only for one hit.

So they need to use a psyker power to make it a force weapon, wound, have the opponent fail a save, and then use another psyker power to use the force weapon ID?

seems like a waste of a farseer to me.

In terms of actual changes to the farseer and warlock powers, I don't think too many changes are required. However, some suggestions:

A mechanism for farseers to be able to affect a unit without being attached to the unit. Far too often are farseers simply unit upgrades.

options for fixing:
1) increase range of powers. Guide, Doom, and Fortune are 6" range. Make it 12" or 18" and it opens up flexibility in positioning for the farseer.
2) Remove restrictions all-together. "The eldar player selects a friendly eldar unit". Anywhere on the table, line of sight or no.
3) Link targeting to the unit in question. If the unit has a warlock, unrestricted range. If the unit has an exarch, unrestricted range in line of sight. etc etc

Reliability of powers - Fortune is best on a unit which is already fairly tough, as it changes the unit from being fairly tough to being insanely tough (see: Seer Councils, Wraithguard), however, the usefulness of basing a strategy around psyker powers is fairly limited if they can be - at best- expected to be nullified 30-40% of the time. Psychic defense is proliferating, as it is rumored necrons will have psyker defenses in their next codex. If the autarch and avatar get buffs, and the PLs get buffs, but farseers stay similarly limited to being psykers, they will be the least-taken HQ choice in the codex, because no one wants to spend 100-200 points on a HQ choice they can use 60% of the time.

With other codexes (space wolves, BA), the psyker powers seem to be in the vein of "If they work, they are amazing". Living lightning, jaws, etc. The eldar have never had flashy destructive powers. In my opinion, the eldar should be about dependability. Eldar powers aren't necessarily more destructive or more powerful than other codexes, but our psykers are better. I see several good options to allow farseers to still operate (being nothing-but-psyker models) in an environment of psychic hoods and runic things.

1) Simple - farseer powers can't be nullified or negated (though they can still fail a psychic test through a modified roll, such as from SitW).
2) Use #2 from above to fix the problem. Unlimited range hoods will go away. If the farseer can stand in the backfield and buff units at the front lines, he doesn't care about 24" range psychic hoods. It brings it back to positioning. The drawback of this: a farseer is going to be riding around in a falcon all game long.
3) A new mechanic, which also removes mind war. Instead of nullification, any time at which an opponent attempts to nullify a farseer's power, the two players roll a d6 and add leadership (just as they would in a psychic hood situation). Should the farseer win, the opposing player's psyker takes the difference in wounds with only invulnerable saves allowed. Should the farseer lose, the power is cancelled. - this introduces a risk/reward scenario for the opposing player. Yes, he can use his librarian to try to nullify the farseer's power, but he risks having his librarian go splat like an overripe tomato.

Gwyidion wrote: 1) increase range of powers. Guide, Doom, and Fortune are 6" range. Make it 12" or 18" and it opens up flexibility in positioning for the farseer.

Doom is already 24" range just FYI

Gwyidion wrote: 2) Remove restrictions all-together. "The eldar player selects a friendly eldar unit". Anywhere on the table, line of sight or no.

I like this suggestion a lot, but it would mean a significant cost increase to farseers.

Gwyidion wrote: 3) Link targeting to the unit in question. If the unit has a warlock, unrestricted range. If the unit has an exarch, unrestricted range in line of sight. etc etc.

This would also work, but if we are costing units to include a leader as standard, then its pointless.

Gwyidion wrote:1) Simple - farseer powers can't be nullified or negated (though they can still fail a psychic test through a modified roll, such as from SitW).

This would work, but again they would need a point increase

Gwyidion wrote: 2) Use #2 from above to fix the problem. Unlimited range hoods will go away. If the farseer can stand in the backfield and buff units at the front lines, he doesn't care about 24" range psychic hoods. It brings it back to positioning. The drawback of this: a farseer is going to be riding around in a falcon all game long.

you could make certain powers so that they cannot be cast from inside a vehicle.

Gwyidion wrote:3) A new mechanic, which also removes mind war. Instead of nullification, any time at which an opponent attempts to nullify a farseer's power, the two players roll a d6 and add leadership (just as they would in a psychic hood situation). Should the farseer win, the opposing player's psyker takes the difference in wounds with only invulnerable saves allowed. Should the farseer lose, the power is cancelled. - this introduces a risk/reward scenario for the opposing player. Yes, he can use his librarian to try to nullify the farseer's power, but he risks having his librarian go splat like an overripe tomato.

This has been suggested before, I'm not sure if it was by you, but I love the idea.

Somewhat reviving this thread. I feel that the Eldar identity needs polishing a bit more, so going back to army-wide special rules.

Farseer. A definite is that this model be changed to similar format to Librarians. Increased base cost, but must choose 2 psychic powers at no additional cost. Upgrade model to receive more powers and more power uses per turn.
The question is, Fortune and Guide are both potent powers as long as they are used on the correct target, and the ideal target is usually not compatible between each other. Guide you want on War Walkers, Fortune on Seer Council, for best effect. In an effort to improve Eldar Psychic powers to be competitive (and fitting to fluff); what about merging Guide and Fortune into one? One Eldar squad within 12" may re-roll hit rolls when shooting and saves when taking damage.
Another alternative is to make Fortune and Guide, while separate, more similar to the Space Marine cover save spells. ...affects any Eldar unit within 6" of the Farseer until the start of the Farseer's next movement phase.
Other suggestions:
Doom - this one is excellent as it is.
Mind War - one model suffers a wound on a saved roll, instant death on an unsaved roll.
Eldritch Storm - unlimited range, barrage.

Army-wide special rules.
I've been going over this a lot today (had another 500-point learn-the-game match with a friend, so it's only natural - note to self: next time make sure you lose) and there's two things that I'd like to see in the Eldar army.
Basic stuff: Fleet of Foot and Move Through Cover. This makes the army more friendly to non-mech. I don't think Jetbikes or Skimmers really need more encouragement (Jetbikes only need their own unique issues resolved and are unique enough), but makes a board with a lot of area terrain more at home for the Eldar.
Advanced stuff: Here's the killer. Dark Eldar are so similar, that a similar format has been set already. Can't really make every unit a psycher for Craftworld Eldar (even though I'd like to), but Dark Eldar has a pain system that would be nice reflected in their Craftworld kin. Not necessarily revolving around killing enemy squads, but possibly reflecting the Eldar as a dying race who is gathering resolve as losses grow higher.
However, and there's always a however, while it would be nice having a special rule that makes CWE increasingly resistant to morale and generally more difficult to kill the more losses they take is tempting, it might also lead to sacrificial units - 60 points of Dire Avengers just to have them get killed in order to get the bonuses.

Here's another idea that I've been musing over.
Blood of the Craftworld. Roughly: each army must include at least two Guardian (Guardian, Jetbike Guardian, War Walker, Vyper) units. When determining if the army has been wiped out, only count Guardian units who are still on the table (Guardians whom are falling back do not count as destroyed for this purpose).
Here's the tricky part, though: While these units need to perform well enough that you want to risk them, the OTHER units also have to be attractive enough so that you don't want to ONLY use Guardian units on the table.
The rough outlines for Blood of the Craftworld could also be used to measure other special rules.

Aspect Warrior. Well, this is just a special rule that sticks on all Aspect Warriors, Exarchs, Autarchs, and Phoenix Lords. The general outline for this is how Eldar acted at the beginning of the Dawn of War II intro - no, not that every one of them died - they're all sneaky (except for the non-Aspect Warriors around the Farseer).
Infiltrate to ALL Aspect Warriors? Actually, I'm thinking Scouts to all Guardians and Infiltrate to all Aspect Warriors - again, an effort to make foot armies more attractive and to emphasise on mobility.

for every unit of aspect warriors, you must have a unit of guardians

and make guardians not suck

I'd absolutely hate having to take one thing just because I took something else. In fact, I so hate the notion that I'd probably quit playing Eldar if that were the case.

Now, if the rule went:

"For every Aspect warrior unit, you may take a Guardian unit not counting toward the army FoC" then that would be nice.

As far as army wide rules go...why not give the Eldar, a psychic race, an army-wide abilities based on their focusing their inner psychic energy?

Like combat drugs, choosing one of these for your squads at the start of the game(each squad can choose a different one, but only once, the choice is irrevocable):

Unit gaining Furios Charge USR

Unit gaining Stubborn USR

Unit gaining Stealth USR

Unit gaining Acute Senses USR

Unit gaining +1 BS

Unit gaining +1 WS

Unit gaining +1 Attack

etc...

Each of those would of course cost some extra points and each Aspect warrior squad would have the limit of 1 USR special ability and 1 stat-buffing special ability. So a shooty squad could take +1 BS and Acute Senses, for example. While Howling Banshees could take Furious Charge and +1 WS and Scorpions +1 WS and +1 Attack.

Not sure if my examples are particularly good, but you get the picture. It seems like there's a lot of potential there for a race of psychic beings not being put to use by the current codex.

In terms of armywide special rules I would also like to see Fleet of Foot and Move through Cover. I don't really like Blood of the Craftworld though because guardians are only brought to battle when there aren't enough aspect warriors and because it means that all an opponent has to do is kill your guardians to win. I also think that giving all aspects infiltrate would be too powerful (and reduce the uniqueness of scorpions), however I agree that a rule that encourages taking aspect warriors on foot is a good idea. IMO aspect warriors should get Scout.

Farseers- I would like to see farseers getting 2 psychic powers base and being able to cast 2 base with upgrades to get more psychic powers and to be able to cast the same psychic power twice.
Guide: I hardly ever take guide since IMO doom is generally more useful because it buffs multiple units for both shooting and assault phases where guide buffs one unit for just the shooting phase. If all psychic powers are the same cost then I would like to see guide give re-rolls to hit in both shooting and assault phases.

@Araenion
I think eldar stats are already high enough that letting them take extra stat buffs and USRs beyond what each aspect already has would make them too expensive. Remember that we have already discussed giving melee aspects WS5, giving them all Fleet, Move through Cover, maybe Infiltrate or Scouts and then they have exarch powers.

You forgot 2 Attacks base. Heh. To be honest, that line of thinking seems a bit pointless to me. We're not actually writing a codex here, we're giving ideas that just *might* inspire some GW worker that happens to spend time around DakkaDakka and is interested in Eldar to add something similar into the next codex.

Just because we "agreed" on some statline for individual parts of the codex, doesn't mean we should stop throwing new ones into the mix. As long as they are related and not unreasonable.

I'm personally uncomfortable buffing aspect warrior statline across the board to Harlequin-level, but that's just me. Others who played Eldar in 1st or 2nd edition will remember the motto "everything you do, Eldar do better" as being true and may have a different opinion.

Army-wide psychic powers would be similar to Warlock powers. I'm uncomfortable with them since there's no base for them fluff-wise (yes, fluff is important, just look at how reviled Guardians are not only from performance) since Dark Eldar share the same heritage, although offer less refinement on their psychic powers - and they don't have army-wide psychers. Proliferation of Warlocks is a better choice in that case.
A good outline for that would be: every squad may purchase a Warlock as an upgrade (with the exception of Swooping Hawks and Warp Spiders). Guardians COULD conceivably get a sergeant-type character leading them who offers the squad the leadership of aspect-warrior prowess.
That would also mean you can finally kill off the Council. There'd be plenty of MC and vehicle killing goodness if you just forked out 25-50 points per squad to go around.

Another idea, which again is an old one: Wraithguard's "sergeant" changed from Warlock to Bonesinger. Going hand-in-hand with the above, the squad could purchase a Warlock as well.

Mandatory Guardian debate: What if you changed shuriken catapults into two different kinds; long-barrelled and over-charged. Long-barrelled could have the range of maybe 24" (i.e. be exactly the same, stat-wise, as a Storm Bolter). Over-charged would be the same as now, but with +1 attack. The idea is that you would make a choice for your Guardians whether to be long-ranged or more powerful short ranged. Same goes for under-slung on vehicles (possibly not so much on jetbikes, though, as I have a feeling that 24" with JSJ is a tad... too good).
The question is how to fit these in with the Dire Avengers. Of course, the option remains to have the Dire Avenger ritual weapon be a +6" over-charged one, but that would mean you'd need to touch up their cost, though.

One alternative to guardians (and lets be honest, when we're discussing fixes for guardians, what we're really discussing is changes to shurken catapults and where it leaves DAs vs Guardians), that i've always liked is:

Shuriken Catapult: S3 Ap5 R24" Assault 3
Avenger Shuriken Cat: S4 Ap4 R24" Assault 3

Bladestorm gives TL

The basic idea behind these is a high-rate of fire, for being SCs, and the fluff is that they are the same weapon, but Avengers use high-caliber shurikens, which reduces effective range, but increases stopping power

For farseers, i'd like 2 casts base, 3 with wargear upgrade, select 2 powers at deployment, 3 with upgrade, witchblade stays 2+ wound, no PW,

Warlocks 1 per 5 could be interesting, especially since we have Torrent of Fire/ whatever it is called in 5th which honestly blows when the Warlock gets smoked.

So say 10-man squad of Guardians is 1 Heavy Weapon Guy, two Warlocks, 7 crappy guys. Pretty nice, really.

balthydes wrote:In terms of armywide special rules I would also like to see Fleet of Foot...

Eh...

Fleet got badly nerfed in 5th edition due to the addition of Running. It's not like your rangers are going to get any use out of it. Currently the only models that can really take advantage of it are Banshees, Avengers (both of whom have it already) and Scorpions (who don't).

Unfortunately I don't think this problem can be fixed until something is done about Running. And that's not going to happen until 6th edition at the earliest, for obvious reasons.

Gwyidion wrote:Shuriken Catapult: S3 Ap5 R24" Assault 3
Avenger Shuriken Cat: S4 Ap4 R24" Assault 3

They should never give a basic bolter-equivalent weapon Assault 24". Ever. It is either 24" rapid fire or 12" assault. Dire Avengers already can play cat and mouse with most close combat troops, if the range was 24, it wouldn't even take an effort.

Gwyidion wrote:One alternative to guardians (and lets be honest, when we're discussing fixes for guardians, what we're really discussing is changes to shurken catapults and where it leaves DAs vs Guardians), that i've always liked is:

Shuriken Catapult: S3 Ap5 R24" Assault 3
Avenger Shuriken Cat: S4 Ap4 R24" Assault 3

Bladestorm gives TL

The basic idea behind these is a high-rate of fire, for being SCs, and the fluff is that they are the same weapon, but Avengers use high-caliber shurikens, which reduces effective range, but increases stopping power

For farseers, i'd like 2 casts base, 3 with wargear upgrade, select 2 powers at deployment, 3 with upgrade, witchblade stays 2+ wound, no PW,

I think you missed writing Avenger catapult range down.

Another approach could be to completely separate Guardian Storm and Guardian Defenders so that, especially if you dance around a bit with Warlock powers:

Guardian Storm. Troop choice. Squad size 10-20. 8 points each. Armed with Shuriken Catapults (current statline), Shuriken Pistols, and Close combat weapons (yes, all three). Up to 3 of the squad's Shuriken Catapults may be upgraded to flamer or fusion gun for +6 points per model upgraded. NO PLATFORMS.

Guardian Defender. Elite choice. Squad size 2-10. Armed with Shuriken Catapults. Purchased in pairs. 10 points per pair. Each pair must be accompanied by a heavy weapon platform. One heavy weapon platform may be armed with a support weapon. ONLY PLATFORMS.

Warlocks. 25 points per model. May be purchased by any non jump infantry squad as an optional upgrade. Must choose a power among:
* Embolden - As current.
* Vigour - Squad may move up to 6" in the assault phase in lieu of assaulting, provided the squad hasn't used any heavy weapons.
* Conceal - When shooting on the squad, an enemy must roll as if affected by night-fighting.
* Enhance - As current. Or possibly Furious Assault? Read below.
I feel Destructor has little role to play in this setup.

How does this affect Guardians specifically? Well, it moves Guardians to a position where, if you want them to perform optimally, they must be close and preferably in assault range. They will still be carrying relatively heavy weapons for an assault squad, however, so unloading a hail of shurikens and flame before charging or bringing a few fusion guns to pop a transport first is vital - 50% of their offence is in close range and 50% is in melee.
Warlocks, on the other hand, provides a very good diversity with Vigour for particularly Guardians where you arm them with Fusion Guns or no special weapons at all, or for Dire Avengers, where you move forward, unload the storm, and then retreat. This tactic costs a premium, however, I expect such a Warlock to cost around 35 points and that tactic doesn't really work on anything but light infantry.
Striking Scorpions and Howling Banshees would benefit greatly from Enhance. Whether the current version or a Furious Assault version. Obviously, Furious Assault will near multiply the effectiveness of Banshees. It should be noted, however, that Counter-attack and Infiltrate Exarch powers won't work if you assign a Warlock to these squads!
Guardian Defenders mimic Devastators, both in FOC position and in role. However, unlike Devastators they are poor at aiming, relatively cheap, and more numerous. The move to Elite also justifies the relatively small mimimum squad size on 5+ save infantry - here a Conceal Warlock could work like a charm, partly because Vigour won't work for them.

Eumerin wrote:

balthydes wrote:In terms of armywide special rules I would also like to see Fleet of Foot...

Eh...

Fleet got badly nerfed in 5th edition due to the addition of Running. It's not like your rangers are going to get any use out of it. Currently the only models that can really take advantage of it are Banshees, Avengers (both of whom have it already) and Scorpions (who don't).

Unfortunately I don't think this problem can be fixed until something is done about Running. And that's not going to happen until 6th edition at the earliest, for obvious reasons.

It's sort of a package deal. Some of our troops could really deal with a dual role or a run-assault role if it wasn't for the development of Marine troops marginalizing our foot soldiers so much. The other part of the package is Move Through Cover, much more useful to the army as a whole, in my opinion.

Araenion wrote:I'd absolutely hate having to take one thing just because I took something else. In fact, I so hate the notion that I'd probably quit playing Eldar if that were the case.

I agree, restricting you and forcing you to build an army in such a rigid structure just isn't fun. Its one of the many things I hate about Space Marines, what if I don't want to have a commander in my tactical squad huh?! Thats why I didn't like the previous craftworld specific rules that were suggested, anything that confines your army list more than it needs to be confined just takes alot of fun from list building.

A suggestion could be, instead of "+ whatever bonus per unit that dies" it could be "+ bonus every time the army looses 25% of its overall points" it would reflect the more significant loss of an important farseer or autarch compaired to a couple of guardians.


......Ony just noticed I didn't see any of the last page before posting :S (its early monday morning, I'm allowed to be slow )
I dont think moving defender guardians to elite would be a good decision, Its already a busy FOC slot and the aspect warriors are far more elite than poets sitting on big guns. If anything they would be heavy support, but moving there would make the FOC chart even more cramped.

The core of the suggestion was to separate the heavy weapons from the Guardians themselves to allow for more flexibility. The question is, however, whether it is remotely sane making a unit entirely composing of a combination of 2-5 EMLs and Scatter Lasers, so to speak. Well, it IS sane, but for Troop choice?

Question is this thread around because GW might be doing a new eldar codex soon? I keep reading this thread and loving a lot of the ideas and then I think to myself "I wonder when the new eldar codex is coming out?" does anyone have a vague idea? I don't know when the last one came out so I'm not sure if there is a trend to the updating of codices like GW updates a codex or the rules every year or two or three. SO does anyone have any ideas as to when the next eldar codex might come out?

Last one came out 2006, though don't know what part of it.

I was under the impression the fluff for the Dark Eldar and Craftworld Eldar codex's were being written at the same time so that there would be some nice links and cross-overs.
That being said i wouldn't be surprised if an Eldar codex cropped up in a year, but equally, i wouldn't be surprised if it took 2 or more, as theres no real way to know...

But the next dex should be Imperium, so i'm going to say Inquisition.
Following that theres a few possibilities... Eldar being one of them, but crons and tau are in a more needy situation.
Then some space marine loving, BT or DA i'd assume, most likely with some OTT rules like BA and some hefty points costs on some of the charecters.

But this is all speculation, i have no idea

Ok sweet so I didn't start playing so early that I will have to wait half a decade before a codex update. Good deal.

The current Eldar codex is in rather good shape for a 4th edition codex, and it's a Xeno codex. Don't hold your breath. There's armies worse off (basically all other Xeno 4th edition codices) and there's several inconsequential Empire codices which seem to take precedence against all logic, so Eldar codex is at least a year away I'd hazard.
This thread is mostly to deal with obsolete units (Falcons, Swooping Hawks, Guardians, etc) and for fun. It might produce something which you can house rule "Hey, guys, you know how I've been painting these awesome Swooping Hawks but never used them, would you be OK if with spiced them up a bit so I didn't have to feel like a stone trying to swim?".

Who knows, someone might accidentally read through it and find ideas for the next real codex, but those chances are slim at best.

Gotcha also about obsolete units I like falcons they have so much firepower and I feel that they are not obsolete.

That chance is still there, Mahtamori. And if nothing else, it gives bragging rights to a person that gets it right.

Dark Eldar got theirs, Necrons are soon next, after that the Daemonhunters and I suspect, Tau. Probably the Witchhunters after that and then either Eldar or CSM. In all honesty, I think Eldar dex has far fewer variety than a CSM, not to mention that those few builds that do work are, by hearsay, inferior to a competitive CSM build.

So sometime late next year is pretty good assumption. Which is fine by me, really.

You mean like the Dark Eldar venom?

Also, fact is that the 3rd edition codices need a lot of time to update because they're 2 editions behind the rest. A whole lot of new models and new rules and such. I don't suspect Eldar changing a whole lot, really. Added variety, stramlined options across the codex, a few special characters, etc...nothing groundbreaking.

Araenion wrote:Also, fact is that the 3rd edition codices need a lot of time to update because they're 2 editions behind the rest. A whole lot of new models and new rules and such. I don't suspect Eldar changing a whole lot, really. Added variety, stramlined options across the codex, a few special characters, etc...nothing groundbreaking.

Ok, we're straying off topic, but let's just say "groundbreaking" depends on at what point in the process of codex creep the codex is published. Early (when you set examples), mid (when you get the odd super-powered stuff), late (when you get the insane stuff, such as the bloody blood codex of blood), or in preparation of the next edition (which is when you get the "this is what we think will be most appropriate as a standard in two years").
Suffice to say, getting a codex right before a new edition is bad (Necrons and 3rd edition...).

-----

I really do feel that should Guardians get some way to gain JSJ, and also be able to choose in battle - not in army construction - whether to go melee or ranged is the best way forward in order to make them worth 8 points. The only problem is that all those weapon platforms the Guardians keep lugging around just counteracts what you could achieve with melee weapons combined with what is essentially strong shotguns.

So, to get back on topic: If you made a unit consist entirely out of heavy weapon platforms and their crew - would that fall in "a unique and interesting troop choice" or "this unit feel malplaced" categories?

Mahtamori wrote:So, to get back on topic: If you made a unit consist entirely out of heavy weapon platforms and their crew - would that fall in "a unique and interesting troop choice" or "this unit feel malplaced" categories?

If Dark Reapers had their heavy weapons again instead of their current overly specialized anti-marine guns, then giving Guardians more weapons platforms might feel out of place. But the Reapers don't.

And the Eldar ground-based heavy weapons are all somewhat goofy - i.e. Vibrocannons, etc... - instead of being straightforward "blow stuff up" weapons.

So I think there is a good argument for including a guardian squad with multiple weapons platforms.

The way the rules have changed -both core and codex - has turned Eldar into 4 common items at its most competitive. Eldrad, Dire Avengers, Fire Dragons and Wave Serpents. Certainly there is room for vehicle weapon choice and an odd unit or two but the effect of 5th edition, short ranges and the ever-present eldar T3 has meant the world is vehicle mounted and other than special situations, Eldar HTH is useless or overpriced.

I don't see an issue with 1 weapon platform per 5 guardians in a squad of 5-10. Its more than an IG infantry squad, but its not a troop long fang squad my any strech of the imagination. It just gives them a more ranged focus, whilst not leaving them hopeless when the hordes inevitably close in. You could then give the option of replacing two weapon platforms with a Vibro/D-Cannon for X points. To me, thats not unreasonable for a troop unit if costed sensibly.

Has anyone got any further suggestions for Hawks? this is the 3rd or 4th time we've tried to sort them and made little progress and given up .

a far as I see it we have yet to (fully) discuss:
Hawks
Scorpions
Banshees
Quins
GJB's
Vypers
War Wakers
Wraithlords

I would be okay with the 2 platforms for 10 guardians, but at the same time you could end up making an overpowered hoard. If you brought 6 groups of 10 guardians with lets say shuricannons for 5 points. Each unit will cost 90 points and overall they will be firing 36 St6 shots while still being able to assault. You will have a huge amount of heavy wep platforms for relatively cheap. I have run a game with this same set up except I didn't have 2 platforms per squad and the gauraidns swamped the table with fire even with only 6 platforms. So if your going to roll 2 platforms for 10 guardians maybe have the first one regularly costed but if you want to bring a second platform increase the point cost by 10 for each type of platform. Otherwise I ca easily see someone making a list with two guide seers and just making a guardian hoard army.

Layout the aspects and talk about the specialized role they should fill and then fill in the abilities to match it.

Hawks - Long-ranged harassment that can do grenade assaults on vehicles.
Firepower aspect. They should avoid HTH and be hard to kill at range to fulfill their role.
Game Mechanics problem - The yo-yo disappear from the board.
As a fire aspect - WS 4 BS 5 A1 (rest of stats as is)
Lasblaster - 24" S3 AP5 A2 gun
Grenades - Haywire, Fusion.
Template Attack.

I would propose to represent flight - give them a built-in 4+ cover save. The 5 BS gives the ROF 2 weapon great accuracy but if you want to argue make it ROF 3. That is a lot of shots.
I like one of the exarch abilities allowing the template attack but would like to see it changed to deep strike from any position on the board instead of regular movement. The other complaint was that the strength/area of the template attack was the same no matter the number of hawks so it put a premium on small squads. My suggestion would be leave it a large blast template but make the strength variable with a base strength of 3 and an AP of 4 like the EML plasma. Perhaps S 3 + 1 per 3 hawks rounded up. So a min-size of 5 would yield a S4 large blast but a 9 or 10-man squad would yield a S6 large blast. The other thought was making it generic and include a haywire grenade hit if the template touches any vehicle but that might present a problem as again it is not variable with the size of the squad.

Spiders - Short-ranged harassment.

General Aspect. Debate on giviing them HTH prowess - their current exarch layout and abilities allow for that. Spinneret Rifle - Changes as suggested to mimic the night spinner template.

As a General : WS 4 BS 4 A2 (Others the same) 12" A1 Small Blast S6 (Rending, Dangerous Terrain)

Banshees - MEQ killers.
CC Aspect.

AS CC Aspect: WS 5 BS4 A2 (Others the same) Pistol and PW.
Problem with them is survivability for all their first-strike power. Their biggest need is a delivery vehicle or rule that allows them to assault on disembark.
Simplest is to change acrobatics to allow them to disembark and assault. This opens the whole issue of vehicle (so all can do it) or not, my vote is let the banshees have it. All CC could benefit from it but Scorpions should use stealth or outflanking and harlequins(with Shadowseer) are built to go through cover and not be targetable. Give this as a banshee ability and let them rock in this one area.

Scorpions - Stealth GEQ killers
CC Aspect.

AS CC Aspect: WS5 BS4 A2 (Others the same) Pistol, CCW, Mandiblaster

The new WS and A makes these eat through GEQ but the issue to me is slow eldar on foot with no protection for being in the open. The previous suggestion of giving them a +1 to natural cover save and then giving them fleet movement goes a long way. Also fix the scorpion claw - now S6 and only base attacks is kind of worthless.



Dire Avengers - Core eldar anti-infantry

<sigh> To me they are good as is. With our generalist aspect tag, they would be A 2 with other characteristics the same.

Fire Dragons - Heaters-R-Us'

Again fine as is. Between meltas and melta-bombs they do their job. My suggestion would be to make them generalists so same stat lines as today but A 2. So no real benefits.

Dark Reapers - Long-ranged MEQ killers

Firepower aspect so big change is BS 5. Other change would be to make both exarch powers unit-wide traits so very accurate, very good and no cover save run-over.


Generally, I would like to see most exarch abilities to be aspect unit-wide abilities or at least one and then one ability tied to the exarch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Punisher91090 wrote:I would be okay with the 2 platforms for 10 guardians, but at the same time you could end up making an overpowered hoard. If you brought 6 groups of 10 guardians with lets say shuricannons for 5 points. Each unit will cost 90 points and overall they will be firing 36 St6 shots while still being able to assault. You will have a huge amount of heavy wep platforms for relatively cheap. I have run a game with this same set up except I didn't have 2 platforms per squad and the gauraidns swamped the table with fire even with only 6 platforms. So if your going to roll 2 platforms for 10 guardians maybe have the first one regularly costed but if you want to bring a second platform increase the point cost by 10 for each type of platform. Otherwise I ca easily see someone making a list with two guide seers and just making a guardian hoard army.

I don't mind guardians being cheap but I will throw it out again. Make them normally auxiliaries so you can only field them after buying a unit to qualify for them. This would be similar to BA needing to field X death company to field a death co. dreadnought. This solution keeps you from cheap guardian hoard builds but makes them cheap options to add to the army or use up the odd 50 points when filling out a list.