Kremling wrote: Can someone explain to me why a fat, underdeveloped Leman Russ does not receive a penalty on hit while firing a plump 120mm ballistic weapon twice after moving and any Eldar grav tank does while firing a laser?
The Leman Russ only gets to fire its turret weapon twice if it moves half or less(so 5" at 7-12W, 3" at 4-6W, and 2" at 1-3W) of its Movement value.
I am curious on what GWs plans are to improve a Fire Prism(and also the other grav tanks) to a level that it is what an eldar vehicle should be: fast, deadly, fragile. What do the want to do to show superior,fast, eldar tech? BS 2? Add another 12" movement? 4d6 hits for a prism cannon? This is crazy stupid.
We'll find out tomorrow--I'm expecting something like if they move half-speed then they don't suffer a penalty on hit.
Quark wrote: If power is based on strategems as you claim, the army with more strategems is more powerful. That army will never be the Eldar because of unit costs.
Exactly.
Red Corsair disagrees. Not sure why, when access to stratagems clearly adds a lot of strength to units, but he does.
I don't even play Eldar, just came for the salty tears.
A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.
the cosmic serpent wrote: Soooo with the Saim-Hann trait I could take a SH skathach wk place it in deepstrike, and it will have reroll charges? Increases change of success from 33% to just over 55% that's decent. Do the same with Scorpions and spend 2CP to reduce their charge to 7" with a re-roll. If they drop scorpion costs (unlikely because they have always been roughly 17 - 19 points) then this would make them a very efficient first turn harassment unit like AL berserkers. Could be useful for going after heavy weapon squads and the like. Cause some panic in opponent backfield meanwhile the rest of the army gets to run around and cap objectives. Or have some shinning spears fly up the board to offer some aid in CC.
Unfortunately the +2" to charge is the Biel-Tan stratagem, so you wouldn't be able to use it on the Saim-Hann units.
Right missed the Biel-Tan keyword on the strat I thought it was universal, makes sense from the name that it is Biel-Tan only. So what would be a better for scorpions in the case of a Turn 1 assault, reroll 9" or pay 2CP for a 7" charge? My shrines chainswords are revved up and ready for a fight.
A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.
A weak Eldar codex does nothing for the game. Every codex being fun and balanced with the others (as best as possible) is what's good for the game.
dahayden wrote: My biggest issue is that the design does not match the fluff of the Craftworlds. It seems almost as if the designers knew little about the Eldar.
While I kind of agree, it could also be that the designers know "more" about Eldar.
Iyanden is stubborn and resilient, ergo not running away and needing more damage to reduce effectiveness makes sense Ulthwe has a higher level of psychic foresight, thus can avoid damage, so 6+ "FNP" makes sense Biel-tan is more war-like, thus would be more proficient with the standard weapon of Eldar. They also have more disciplined Aspects Saim-hann is more aggressive and reckless and have more skilled bike riders
Fluffwise, all these traits make perfect fluff-sense as Obi-wan would say "from a certain point of view" The only disconnect is that these traits don't always benefit the "perceived" most common units of these Craftworlds. But technically having more of X does not mean your X is better. For example, Just because Iyanden uses more Wraiths does not mean Iyanden's Wraiths are inherently better than Ulthwe's
Overal, I like these traits as they don't pin a player down into the traditional play-style.
Galef wrote: I'm still waiting to see if there is a "Webway" stratagem that allows a unit to 'deepstrike'. If it exists, I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
Until then, Eldar are "ok" and probably still "fun" but hardly tournament worthy in the current meta.
-
Yes this will be really important. I am worried that this will just be the Alatoic infiltration stratagem, which would be far less useful.
The sad thing is that even if they get an any CW available Webway stratagem, Eldar still won't be top-teir because they can't get access to nearly as many CPs as Imperial armies.
But at least they'll be able to participate in competitive games.
-
It would be better as an army wide ability (most likely with keyword limitations on what you can bring through the portal). I suspect a Webway Portal stratagem would be good for only one unit.
Bharring wrote: @Galef: "Biel-tan is more war-like, thus would be more proficient with the standard weapon of Eldar. They also have more disciplined Aspects"
Why would this mean that Biel-Tan militia is more skilled at warfare than Uthwe standing armies?
Because each individual Aeldari on Biel-tan spends more actual time with a shuriken weapon in their hands. They feel Khaine's touch more and actually volunteer for the militia and attack any perceived threat.
Ulthwe's standing army is decided by the leaders and they meticulously choose their battles.
Basically, Ulthwe drafts their army, Biel-tan gets volunteers. And those volunteers live war, rather than it being their day job.
Folks thinking of the move shoot move strat for popping up and then hiding.
But also consider the sweet stuff like last min line breaker or grabbing objs.
Interesting things for big guardian blobs you can effective move the whole unit 14" (16-26" with advance) which can be a great tool to put a big unit in awkward positions for your opponent.
General Kroll wrote: I agree with the Red Corsair, there’s way too much hyperbole in this thread. It seems that unless something is OP, it’s always considered “Garbage.”
It’s no surprise to me that the new Eldar codex hasn’t given tonnes of free buffs. The amount of whining about Eldar as an army in 7th has clearly had an influence on the design team, and while they haven’t nerfed them completely, they have tried to balance things out a little.
Then you and Red Corsair havn't been paying much attention. In and of themselves the traits shown off so far aren't bad, in fact on the right army builds they can be verry good, the problem that most of us are complaining about is that the traits don't particularly fit the fluff of the Craftworlds they are being paired with in a way that makes realistic sense. I mean Iyanden having a trait that favours large blobs of Guardians is moronic, that trait is good but better characterises Ulthwe or Alaitoc.
And as for Strategems Red Corsair will probably be proved to be very wrong, because unless our troops choices have had a massive points drop on all of them we wont be using them often, which means command points will be in short supply even with the Autarchs ability to get some back.
Nope, I’ve been paying attention and fully understand the concerns you have raised about the traits. I just don’t agree. In a competitive sense, the traits could be utilised to greater affect for different units than those intended. However, that doesn’t make them unfluffy, or indeed moronic (there we go with that hyperbole again)
The Iyanden trait, combined with their relic, makes their wrait units tougher, even if it in a hyper competitive meta it won’t make a huge difference.
The Ulthwé trait, again gives a sense of psychic support in that it’s basically quasi fortune.
The Biel Tan trait specifically affects their Aspect warriors, while at the same time showing that their militia is likely some of the best trained.
The leaked Samm Hain and Alaitoc traits also seem pretty fluffy too.
To me the traits are a little overly simplistic, and that’s why in some cases they could be used in a different way than intended. But I think they are like that for a reason. It’s far easier to balance the game if you keep things simple. Guard seems to have bucked the trend so far and over stepped the power mark a little.
As for strategems, they can still add plenty of flavour, even if you’re not using a dozen of them in a game.
That was not hyperbole, that was me being acurate.
The Iyanden trait does not make Wraith units tougher (their base toughnes stat being increased to 6 makes them tougher), Wraithguard are never run in large squads due to the need for transports so at Ld9 the triat will never effect them, and 10 man Wraithblade squads have better options for survivability (the Ulthwe trait for starters). And the relic doesn't make them tougher, it makes them hit harder once per game then take mortal wounds.
No, the Ulthwe trait gives everything FnP, does absolutely nothing to boost Pyskers so gives no impression of extra pyschic support, and at present it actually physically stops Fortune from working in an Ulthwe army due to units with a similar ability being untargetable for that power. So, actively reduces Psychic support since Fortune is better than the trait.
+1Ld, WOW, suddenly Aspects are amazing! The only Aspect that actually gains out of this is Dire Avengers, the only other Apects likely to be run in large enough squads (Banshees and Scorpions) struggle for killing power so much you don't use them. And nothing in Biel-Tan's fluff says they have better trained Guardians, thats Ulthwe.
Saim-Hann's trait is very fluffy for them, I'll certainly agree to that.
I disagree on Alaitoc, they might be known as the Ranger Craftworld but their standing Warhost doesn't rely on a core of Rangers, it's a core of Guardians with Aspect support. They're probably the most generalist of the big 5 Craftworlds, they just have a higher proportion of affiliated Rangers.
When I have to use the Ulthwe trait to get the most out of my Wraith army, you know something has gone wrong.
It’s like you completely ignored the point I was making, just so you could repeat your complaints.
You also conveniently ignore things like the fluff reasons for the pseudo fnp on Ulthwe units. Gw have basically given an army wide quasi version of fortune. Just because you can’t use both abilities, it doesn’t mean you still can’t cast fortune on your units. You just can’t use both.
The advantages it does give, are that a) you still get fortune even if you didn’t cast it, b) it can’t be denied c) you could give your Farseers other powers instead.
It doesn’t take much imagination to accept the fluff explanation for this ability.
For someone so concerned about the fluff matching up to the rules, you seem all too willing to completely ignore it. You seem far more concerned with how powerful it would make your army and which trait your going to switch to to ensure you get the abilities you think are strongest.
As for calling something you find silly “moronic” that’s the very definition of hyperbole.
A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.
Oh it's so welcome. It solved a problem I didn't have and replaced it with a bad set of rules. So very welcome. You know what else I'd love? All my units doubling in price!
Imperium units aren't being affected any more than Eldar units already are. Ynnari is no different than "Imperium Soup", except that the Imperium can take a soup list without requiring a specific warlord character tax (because Imperium always get the favourtism treatment). There is no reason for Ynnari to gain a rule that punishes people for taking them, more so than being forced to take one of the triumverate as the warlord tax.
If GW did as you say, and added a rule that said "If you become a Ynnari army, then you lose the Asuryani keyword", then Eldar would lose most of their psychic abilities, traits, stratagems, and Ynnari would be a huge disability compared to a craftworld army. It would also be the same for Harlequins and Dark Eldar (after they get their codices). So playing Ynnari would always be significantly weaker than playing a "pure" Eldar or Dark Eldar force. And GW would not do this, as it would mean people being restricted in what models they would buy.
Not necessarily.
Asuryani, Drukhari, and Harlequins having those keywords replaced by Ynnari would be a huge boon...especially if it specified that abilities that targeted Asuryani/Drukhari/whatever also instead target Ynnari items, now wouldn't it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the current keyword system for a Faction Craftworld Eldar unit something like this:
Aeldari, Asuryani, <Craftworld>
You also seem to assume Ynnari will get their own codex. This is far from guaranteed, as Ynnari isn't an army but is just the triumverate (and the rules for them are given in their box). Unless GW do a big Ynnari release (like Death Guard) with a bunch of new units... highly unlikely. If it does happen, it wont be for several years, as we already know their next couple of big releases and they aren't Eldar related.
You might end up being correct, but it's so incredibly unlikely. GW would have to ignore public opinion, good sales tactics, and good game design, in order to make the changes you seem to find so likely. I am doubtful.
Seeing as how they have insinuated that Ynnari are getting their own Codex, I'm pretty okay with assuming that.
A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.
Oh it's so welcome. It solved a problem I didn't have and replaced it with a bad set of rules. So very welcome. You know what else I'd love? All my units doubling in price!
Meh, don't feed the trolls. Just send them back to watching SM/IG players eating each other over in the general discussions section right now. It's kind of refreshing to see the lack of complaining about our superior race.
A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.
Oh it's so welcome. It solved a problem I didn't have and replaced it with a bad set of rules. So very welcome. You know what else I'd love? All my units doubling in price!
Meh, don't feed the trolls. Just send them back to watching SM/IG players eating each other over in the general discussions section right now. It's kind of refreshing to see the lack of complaining about our superior race.
Is funny how the "Imperium Civil War" many people wanted for the Lore of 8th edition, has happened, but in a meta-universe sense
Galef wrote: For example, Just because Iyanden uses more Wraiths does not mean Iyanden's Wraiths are inherently better than Ulthwe's
True.
But, if Ulthwé wraiths are better tha Iyanden ones, we will see players field Ulthwé wraiths and not Iyanden ones.
Technically there's nothing wrong with an Ulthwé wraith-heavy army. They would exist. But if everyone fields their wraiths as Ulthwé and not Iyanden, then the rules have failed to promote fluffy army lists.
It's the same as other codices. A catachan jungle fighter tank company could exist - though it wouldn't be hugely useful in an actual jungle. But if Everyone fields jungle fighters for their tanks, rather than say steel legion, it starts to get weird.
Anyway the Sami Hann trait seems both fluffy and powerful. So that's something.
A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.
Oh it's so welcome. It solved a problem I didn't have and replaced it with a bad set of rules. So very welcome. You know what else I'd love? All my units doubling in price!
Meh, don't feed the trolls. Just send them back to watching SM/IG players eating each other over in the general discussions section right now. It's kind of refreshing to see the lack of complaining about our superior race.
Is funny how the "Imperium Civil War" many people wanted for the Lore of 8th edition, has happened, but in a meta-universe sense
Idk, call me crazy but a Turn 1 tabling doesent make my games any fun. The complaints I've hear do far were "Underwhelming, waaaah" and my point is that with EVERYONE underwhelming, we are at a better place. And if you're salty about the IG being top dog, welcome to our level. Our local Eldar players stopped showing up during 7th edition. People brought half built Wraith knights and couldn't find games. So yeah. I'm not surprised in the least you all got nerfed.
And I would love for Orks to be decent for once, they're my second army!
Idk, call me crazy but a Turn 1 tabling doesent make my games any fun
Okay, you're crazy. (Not really)
Nightlord1987 wrote: And I would love for Orks to be decent for once, they're my second army!
For once? I would say "again" - 3rd edition Orks were decent, especially Speed Freaks. Early 4th I played against someone running that army and he could be anybody with it. Back in the day when taking a looted vehicle meant taking a vehicle from somebody else's codex and getting to use their weapons. Unfortunately, that was long, long ago and they've been nerfed hard since then. Maybe FW will roll around to them again at some point, or GW will decide to revisit Gorkamorka and do stuff to incorporate rebel grots.
General Kroll wrote: The Iyanden trait, combined with their relic, makes their wrait units tougher, even if it in a hyper competitive meta it won’t make a huge difference.
The Ulthwé trait, again gives a sense of psychic support in that it’s basically quasi fortune.
The Biel Tan trait specifically affects their Aspect warriors, while at the same time showing that their militia is likely some of the best trained.
The leaked Samm Hain and Alaitoc traits also seem pretty fluffy too.
But for wraiths you actually want the Ulthwe while for Saim Hann it's the biel-tan trait you want.
It's like giving rerolls to shooting trait for world eaters. "Yey rerolls for pistols...Well guess it's a bonus but still feels weird..."
A weaker Eldar codex is a welcome thing, now people won't groan everyone they see eldar on the table. And don't worry, ynarri is still annoying and powerful.
Oh it's so welcome. It solved a problem I didn't have and replaced it with a bad set of rules. So very welcome. You know what else I'd love? All my units doubling in price!
Meh, don't feed the trolls. Just send them back to watching SM/IG players eating each other over in the general discussions section right now. It's kind of refreshing to see the lack of complaining about our superior race.
Is funny how the "Imperium Civil War" many people wanted for the Lore of 8th edition, has happened, but in a meta-universe sense
Idk, call me crazy but a Turn 1 tabling doesent make my games any fun. The complaints I've hear do far were "Underwhelming, waaaah" and my point is that with EVERYONE underwhelming, we are at a better place. And if you're salty about the IG being top dog, welcome to our level. Our local Eldar players stopped showing up during 7th edition. People brought half built Wraith knights and couldn't find games. So yeah. I'm not surprised in the least you all got nerfed.
And I would love for Orks to be decent for once, they're my second army!
Perhaps if you'd just said that bit about everyone being underwhelming, we'd have no issue. I'd agree with that, it's an okay state for the game to take everyone down a power level. That being said, and this might sound weird, but Eldar being strong wasn't fun always for us Eldar mains, either. I worked to avoid OP units, build fairly, and even then got nonstop earfuls of "Eldar are OP" bitching (by people who brought Skyhammer, nonetheless). At this point, it's really just people who enjoy complaining about Eldar for the sake of complaining, and that's what it sounded like you were doing. As the great philosopher Fall Out Boy said, "You can only blame your problems on the world for so long before it all becomes the same old song."
I don't get why you're all so salty. Eldar seem to have a codex on par with everyone but Guard's. All of your attributes seem decent; they aren't meant to be game-breaking like the Grinding Advance rule change was.
Iyanden is a great attribute. It's strictly better than the Valhalla doctrine, and I think you are all underestimating how good having an army-wide Summary Execution is in an environment where large units are favored due to stratagems. Plus, the double wounds apply from everything up to Wraithknights, which is amazing.
Biel-Tan got +1 LD and army-wide reroll 1s on a very common weapon. If SMs got this for Bolters or AdMech for Phosphor, people would be howling.
Ulthwe is a nice universal durability improvement. Everyone has wounds, right?
Saim-Hann has everything you could ask for a Fast Attack option. Mobile Heavy shooting, excellent improvement on charge odds.
And your last option might be -1 to hit at 12", which SM and AdMech have and consider amazingly good.
Suzuteo wrote: I don't get why you're all so salty. Eldar seem to have a codex on par with everyone but Guard's. All of your attributes seem decent; they aren't meant to be game-breaking like the Grinding Advance rule change was.
Iyanden is a great attribute. It's strictly better than the Valhalla doctrine, and I think you are all underestimating how good having an army-wide Summary Execution is in an environment where large units are favored due to stratagems. Plus, the double wounds apply from everything up to Wraithknights, which is amazing.
Biel-Tan got +1 LD and army-wide reroll 1s on a very common weapon. If SMs got this for Bolters or AdMech for Phosphor, people would be howling.
Ulthwe is a nice universal durability improvement. Everyone has wounds, right?
Saim-Hann has everything you could ask for a Fast Attack option. Mobile Heavy shooting, excellent improvement on charge odds.
And your last option might be -1 to hit at 12", which SM and AdMech have and consider amazingly good.
But would you really want the Iyanden for wraith army or will we run into "lots of wraiths=Ulthwe trait, lots of guardians=Iyanden trait"? That's the issue.
I mean if I wanted to build jetbike themed army you can bet I would not be taking Saim-Han but Biel-tan for that. Unless rest of Saim-han bonuses are amazing for jetbikes compensating that their trait is pants over biel-tan(which meanwhile works great for jetbike heavy force! While being rather crappy for aspect warriors except for one specific type) would have no reason to make saim-han bike heavy force.
That's the key problem I think. Not the power level. Shufle traits around craftworlds and there would be less of complaining.
The discussion you guys are having about which trait belongs to which is the exact same effin' discussion IG players were having. Catachans are about jungles not heavy weapons!
But would you really want the Iyanden for wraith army or will we run into "lots of wraiths=Ulthwe trait, lots of guardians=Iyanden trait"? That's the issue.
I mean if I wanted to build jetbike themed army you can bet I would not be taking Saim-Han but Biel-tan for that. Unless rest of Saim-han bonuses are amazing for jetbikes compensating that their trait is pants over biel-tan(which meanwhile works great for jetbike heavy force! While being rather crappy for aspect warriors except for one specific type) would have no reason to make saim-han bike heavy force.
That's the key problem I think. Not the power level. Shufle traits around craftworlds and there would be less of complaining.
Compared to the mess that is the AdMech codex, the Eldar codex looks as fluffy as cotton candy unicorns. And really, the point of not attaching attributes directly to model types is to give you more freedom. No competitive army can or should consist of one Craftworld.
You would take an Biel-Tan Outrider detachment for Vypers, Saim-Hann for Shining Spears. Windriders as filler for either one.
Daedalus81 wrote: The discussion you guys are having about which trait belongs to which is the exact same effin' discussion IG players were having. Catachans are about jungles not heavy weapons!
Actually, Catachan heavy weapon squads are a thing in the fluff. They're all monstrously strong.
dahayden wrote: My biggest issue is that the design does not match the fluff of the Craftworlds. It seems almost as if the designers knew little about the Eldar.
While I kind of agree, it could also be that the designers know "more" about Eldar.
Iyanden is stubborn and resilient, ergo not running away and needing more damage to reduce effectiveness makes sense
Ulthwe has a higher level of psychic foresight, thus can avoid damage, so 6+ "FNP" makes sense
Biel-tan is more war-like, thus would be more proficient with the standard weapon of Eldar. They also have more disciplined Aspects
Saim-hann is more aggressive and reckless and have more skilled bike riders
Fluffwise, all these traits make perfect fluff-sense as Obi-wan would say "from a certain point of view"
The only disconnect is that these traits don't always benefit the "perceived" most common units of these Craftworlds. But technically having more of X does not mean your X is better.
For example, Just because Iyanden uses more Wraiths does not mean Iyanden's Wraiths are inherently better than Ulthwe's
Overal, I like these traits as they don't pin a player down into the traditional play-style.
-
Well said. They make sense based on the background. I think GW assumes people will pick the background they like and make an army of that craftworld. What people are actually going to do is pick the units they like (or are best) and then pick the craftworld with the bonuses that benefit those units the most.
Daedalus81 wrote: The discussion you guys are having about which trait belongs to which is the exact same effin' discussion IG players were having. Catachans are about jungles not heavy weapons!
Actually, Catachan heavy weapon squads are a thing in the fluff. They're all monstrously strong.
Everyone has Heavy Weapon Squads. But that's not what he is talking about. Catachan Vehicles get bonuses to their Heavy stuff in the form of you getting to reroll one of the D6s for determining the random value on a weapon.
Worth mentioning that it's not mentioned in the Regimental thing itself but the fluff for the Catachans that their strength plays into it, allowing the vehicle crews to reload and fire faster than others.
dahayden wrote: My biggest issue is that the design does not match the fluff of the Craftworlds. It seems almost as if the designers knew little about the Eldar.
While I kind of agree, it could also be that the designers know "more" about Eldar.
Iyanden is stubborn and resilient, ergo not running away and needing more damage to reduce effectiveness makes sense
Ulthwe has a higher level of psychic foresight, thus can avoid damage, so 6+ "FNP" makes sense
Biel-tan is more war-like, thus would be more proficient with the standard weapon of Eldar. They also have more disciplined Aspects
Saim-hann is more aggressive and reckless and have more skilled bike riders
Fluffwise, all these traits make perfect fluff-sense as Obi-wan would say "from a certain point of view"
The only disconnect is that these traits don't always benefit the "perceived" most common units of these Craftworlds. But technically having more of X does not mean your X is better.
For example, Just because Iyanden uses more Wraiths does not mean Iyanden's Wraiths are inherently better than Ulthwe's
Overal, I like these traits as they don't pin a player down into the traditional play-style.
-
Well said. They make sense based on the background. I think GW assumes people will pick the background they like and make an army of that craftworld. What people are actually going to do is pick the units they like (or are best) and then pick the craftworld with the bonuses that benefit those units the most.
Well, if we wade through the tears of many players here, the real disconnect is that while its fluffy and makes sense, its not that great rulewise.
Marine codex = bland and meh. Ultra is best just cause bobby
Chaos = bland and meh, only good one is alpha legion slaanesh many are copies
Greyknights = got nothing really
Admech = codex of mars, everything else is bland and meh or a copy
Imperuial guard = holy crap! major buffs, fluffy and great faction rules!
Eldar = fluffy thus far but very meh, copy/paste not unique.
Everyone is comparing it off Imperial guard which so far are the best codex released. Plus elder were seen as a power house for so long as people are not used to them being middle of the road. *
Ynarii are still super amazing but generic elder are not
dahayden wrote: My biggest issue is that the design does not match the fluff of the Craftworlds. It seems almost as if the designers knew little about the Eldar.
While I kind of agree, it could also be that the designers know "more" about Eldar.
Iyanden is stubborn and resilient, ergo not running away and needing more damage to reduce effectiveness makes sense
Ulthwe has a higher level of psychic foresight, thus can avoid damage, so 6+ "FNP" makes sense
Biel-tan is more war-like, thus would be more proficient with the standard weapon of Eldar. They also have more disciplined Aspects
Saim-hann is more aggressive and reckless and have more skilled bike riders
Fluffwise, all these traits make perfect fluff-sense as Obi-wan would say "from a certain point of view"
The only disconnect is that these traits don't always benefit the "perceived" most common units of these Craftworlds. But technically having more of X does not mean your X is better.
For example, Just because Iyanden uses more Wraiths does not mean Iyanden's Wraiths are inherently better than Ulthwe's
Overal, I like these traits as they don't pin a player down into the traditional play-style.
-
Well said. They make sense based on the background. I think GW assumes people will pick the background they like and make an army of that craftworld. What people are actually going to do is pick the units they like (or are best) and then pick the craftworld with the bonuses that benefit those units the most.
Well, if we wade through the tears of many players here, the real disconnect is that while its fluffy and makes sense, its not that great rulewise.
Eldar = fluffy thus far but very meh, copy/paste not unique.
Everyone is comparing it off Imperial guard which so far are the best codex released. Plus elder were seen as a power house for so long as people are not used to them being middle of the road. *
Ynarii are still super amazing but generic elder are not
Well, I think this speaks well of this edition. Fluffy (or unfluffy depending on your opinion) sub-faction bonuses should not be meant to radically change how a Faction performs. They literally exist to provide flavor, i.e. fun to the game.
Attributes/Traits should be like adding chocolate syrup to a scoop of vanilla ice cream: Just a little extra flavor that adds no nutritional value whatsoever. Stratagems are the cherries on top: they cost a bit extra, but tend to be the part you remember. But what people seem to be expecting are extra scoops of chocolate and strawberry ice cream added between 2 halves of a banana, drizzled with chocolate and caramel syrup and topped with cherries and strawberries. You can't have it all, and if you do, you'll get diabetes (i.e. player's hatred) just like 7th ed Eldar.
Galef wrote: Well, I think this speaks well of this edition. Fluffy (or unfluffy depending on your opinion) sub-faction bonuses should not be meant to radically change how a Faction performs. They literally exist to provide flavor, i.e. fun to the game.
Attributes/Traits should be like adding chocolate syrup to a scoop of vanilla ice cream: Just a little extra flavor that adds no nutritional value whatsoever. Stratagems are the cherries on top.
But what people seem to be expecting are extra scoops of chocolate and strawberry ice cream added between 2 halves of a banana, drizzled with chocolate and caramel syrup and topped with cherries and strawberries.
You can't have it all, and if you do, you'll get diabetes (i.e. player's hatred) just like 7th ed Eldar.
-
Or you could have say following changes:
Biel-tan: Current Iyanden trait
IYanden: Current Ulthwe trait
Saim-Han: Current Biel-tan trait.
Alaitoc: Good as it is
Ulthwe: Something new needed.
This would not make them any more powerful(same rules!) but would result in traits boosting units you generally see with those craftworlds. As it is we likely see rather many Ulthwe armies with Iyanden rules and Saim-han's with Biel-tan while no Iyanden army actually runs as Iyanden unless you can make like 3-4 wraithknight army with them.
Daedalus81 wrote: The discussion you guys are having about which trait belongs to which is the exact same effin' discussion IG players were having. Catachans are about jungles not heavy weapons!
Actually, Catachan heavy weapon squads are a thing in the fluff. They're all monstrously strong.
Galef wrote: Well, I think this speaks well of this edition. Fluffy (or unfluffy depending on your opinion) sub-faction bonuses should not be meant to radically change how a Faction performs. They literally exist to provide flavor, i.e. fun to the game.
Attributes/Traits should be like adding chocolate syrup to a scoop of vanilla ice cream: Just a little extra flavor that adds no nutritional value whatsoever. Stratagems are the cherries on top. But what people seem to be expecting are extra scoops of chocolate and strawberry ice cream added between 2 halves of a banana, drizzled with chocolate and caramel syrup and topped with cherries and strawberries. You can't have it all, and if you do, you'll get diabetes (i.e. player's hatred) just like 7th ed Eldar.
-
Or you could have say following changes:
Biel-tan: Current Iyanden trait IYanden: Current Ulthwe trait Saim-Han: Current Biel-tan trait. Alaitoc: Good as it is Ulthwe: Something new needed.
You could do this, but then you create (unfluffy) situations that you have to explain: Why are Biel-tan vehicle resistant to damage? Why are Iyanden Gaurdians more durable that others? Why are Saim-Hann units better with Shurikens? The traits as they are may not accentuate the traditional units for each CW, but they do portray the "personality" of the CW as it has been described for years.
If it bothers you that the Ulthwe trait is better for Wraithguard, then either take Ulthwe WG, or keep your army painted as Iyanden, but use the Ulthwe trait.
Bharring wrote: The Biel-Tan reroll is more like an IG regiment that got reroll 1s on bolters.
It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.
In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons
Biel Tan also deploys balanced forces i.e. not just Avengers So a fluffy Biel Tan army has more non Avenger Aspects than Avengers. Space Marine Chapters have lots of Devastator Marines. They don't send just Devastators to war because that's dumb.
But what sense could it possibly make for (as an example) Iyanden armies to get the Ulthwe trait? It makes no sense. You just want that because it would be good in an army with lots of wraithguard, not because it makes any sense.
Maybe this is just a clever way GW has invented to determine, before a game, how competitive/casual a gamer you are playing against. If they pull out their Iyanden army with no wraith guard, or an Ulthwe army with all wraith guard, you'll know what you're in for.
Albino Squirrel wrote: But what sense could it possibly make for (as an example) Iyanden armies to get the Ulthwe trait? It makes no sense. You just want that because it would be good in an army with lots of wraithguard, not because it makes any sense.
Maybe this is just a clever way GW has invented to determine, before a game, how competitive/casual a gamer you are playing against. If they pull out their Iyanden army with no wraith guard, or an Ulthwe army with all wraith guard, you'll know what you're in for.
Or they wanted a trait that reflects the lore of their army? Assuming you know what kind of player you're against because of what trait they use with their army says more about you than anything.
Maybe this is just a clever way GW has invented to determine, before a game, how competitive/casual a gamer you are playing against. If they pull out their Iyanden army with no wraith guard, or an Ulthwe army with all wraith guard, you'll know what you're in for.
...It will mean you're in for a game with someone who knows the rules?
I have two squads of Wraithguard, and I'll probably be running them as Ulthwe. Would I be doing it because they're painted as Ulthwe colours? No, I'll be doing it because Ulthwe fits my army list best. They do happen to also be painted as Ulthwe, but thats just a coincidence. I could just as easily play them as Ulthwe in one game, and then Alaitoc in the next game.
And I'm an extremely casual player. Being casual doesn't automatically mean you run the worst possible options in your army.
Bharring wrote: The Biel-Tan reroll is more like an IG regiment that got reroll 1s on bolters.
It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.
In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons
Biel Tan also deploys balanced forces i.e. not just Avengers So a fluffy Biel Tan army has more non Avenger Aspects than Avengers. Space Marine Chapters have lots of Devastator Marines. They don't send just Devastators to war because that's dumb.
I don't see how that's an accurate comparison. The Avengers would be the tacticals
Bharring wrote: The Biel-Tan reroll is more like an IG regiment that got reroll 1s on bolters.
It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.
In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons
Biel Tan also deploys balanced forces i.e. not just Avengers So a fluffy Biel Tan army has more non Avenger Aspects than Avengers. Space Marine Chapters have lots of Devastator Marines. They don't send just Devastators to war because that's dumb.
I don't see how that's an accurate comparison. The Avengers would be the tacticals
No they aren't. They're a shooting unit in realistic terms and an army of just them is easy to kill. Like an army of just Devastators.
chosen_of_khaine wrote: Surprised no one is talking about how Battle Focus is essentially unchanged in the Codex...
Has there been any mention of Battle Focus at all in the previews? I hadn't seen anything.
People aren't talking about it being unchanged, because noone knows if it has changed or not.
It was confirmed on their Facebook page today in the comments on the Saim-Hann article, sadly.
"In the new Codex, Battle Focus means warriors count as stationary when firing, even if they moved or advanced... pretty cool!" and "no, the rules specifically excludes heavy weapons."
Galef wrote: Well, I think this speaks well of this edition. Fluffy (or unfluffy depending on your opinion) sub-faction bonuses should not be meant to radically change how a Faction performs. They literally exist to provide flavor, i.e. fun to the game.
Attributes/Traits should be like adding chocolate syrup to a scoop of vanilla ice cream: Just a little extra flavor that adds no nutritional value whatsoever. Stratagems are the cherries on top: they cost a bit extra, but tend to be the part you remember.
But what people seem to be expecting are extra scoops of chocolate and strawberry ice cream added between 2 halves of a banana, drizzled with chocolate and caramel syrup and topped with cherries and strawberries.
You can't have it all, and if you do, you'll get diabetes (i.e. player's hatred) just like 7th ed Eldar.
-
This is much friendlier version of what I wanted to say. Have an exalt for the clever and well put analogy.
The guard book is good because of the point costs on things. They just have more then anyone else. The doctrines are not actually that great. Somehow people are equating guard units from the index that were good, remaining good while poor units (russes) becoming playable again to their doctrines. Someone point out which guard doctrine is so amazing? It's the cheap special weapon carriers and countless immovable bodies that make them so good.
chosen_of_khaine wrote: Surprised no one is talking about how Battle Focus is essentially unchanged in the Codex...
Has there been any mention of Battle Focus at all in the previews? I hadn't seen anything.
People aren't talking about it being unchanged, because noone knows if it has changed or not.
It was confirmed on their Facebook page today in the comments on the Saim-Hann article, sadly.
"In the new Codex, Battle Focus means warriors count as stationary when firing, even if they moved or advanced... pretty cool!"
and
"no, the rules specifically excludes heavy weapons."
chosen_of_khaine wrote: Surprised no one is talking about how Battle Focus is essentially unchanged in the Codex...
Has there been any mention of Battle Focus at all in the previews? I hadn't seen anything.
People aren't talking about it being unchanged, because noone knows if it has changed or not.
It was confirmed on their Facebook page today in the comments on the Saim-Hann article, sadly.
"In the new Codex, Battle Focus means warriors count as stationary when firing, even if they moved or advanced... pretty cool!"
and
"no, the rules specifically excludes heavy weapons."
It's a weird rule. I mean, it lets you move and shoot with weapons (great!) but doesn't work on heavy weapons (shame)... but Eldar only have assault and heavy weapons, and you can already move and shoot assault weapons without penalty. So the rule is really "Battle Focus - You can advance and shoot Assault weapons without a -1 hit penalty". There was not reason for them to write it really ambiguously, and then have to add a whole extra line removing heavy weapons from the rule.
I suppose it also effects pistols, which some Eldar do have... but not sure how often that ever comes up.
But yeh, as battle focus seems to be the same old same old, there's still no reason not to play Ynnari. Unless they change the rules so Ynnari can't be craftworld. Even then, SfD is probably better than battle focus + craftworld trait.
And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.
Don't forget about Grenades. A Fire Dragon Exarch can swap his Fusion Gun for a Dragons Breathe Flamer to give his unit some versatility, yet he still keeps his Melta Bomb, which Battle Focus allows him to Advance and throw.
True, he has to pick between Melta bomb or Flamer, but it's still a better choice than Fusion gun or Melta bomb.
Battle Focus is also really good for Shuricannon Windriders, but that may be at odds with the Saim-hann trait to give them Scatter lasers (points depending).
Considering everything can benefit (slightly) from Battle Focus, I am happy with it as a rule. If it was any better, we'd be getting too close to the OP-ness of 7th
Bharring wrote: The Biel-Tan reroll is more like an IG regiment that got reroll 1s on bolters.
It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.
In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons
Biel Tan also deploys balanced forces i.e. not just Avengers So a fluffy Biel Tan army has more non Avenger Aspects than Avengers. Space Marine Chapters have lots of Devastator Marines. They don't send just Devastators to war because that's dumb.
I don't see how that's an accurate comparison. The Avengers would be the tacticals
No they aren't. They're a shooting unit in realistic terms and an army of just them is easy to kill. Like an army of just Devastators.
Galef wrote: I'm still waiting to see if there is a "Webway" stratagem that allows a unit to 'deepstrike'. If it exists, I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
Consider the idea of Banshees in Wave Serpents for Saim Hann. The average charge distance with a reroll is nearly 9". Banshees get a 3" disembark, an 8" move and +3" on their charge move. That gives them an average threat range of 23" from the position of their Serpent at the start of the turn. Chuck in Jain Zar to lead them and negate Overwatch and you have a unit that can be deep in your opponent's deployment zone in T2 or jump on any unit that moves out of your opponents deployment zone on T1. Who needs Webway portals?
And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.
So... your answer would be that someone would need to buy and paint 2000 points of space marines and paint them blue to play ultramarines... but if they wanted to play a game as ravenwing they would have to buy a separate 2000 points of identical space marines, but paint them black?
And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.
So... your answer would be that someone would need to buy and paint 2000 points of space marines and paint them blue to play ultramarines... but if they wanted to play a game as ravenwing they would have to buy a separate 2000 points of identical space marines, but paint them black?
Wow. GW must -love- you.
Considering Ravenwing are primarily Bikers and Ultramarines don't really help Bikers...that'd be a really weird thing.
Or did you mean Raven Guard?
In any regards, there's a bit of truth to what he's said. There has been trends over the years with a certain kind of player that builds a Marine army and hopscotches from book to book based upon which book gives them the best bonuses.
Bharring wrote: The Biel-Tan reroll is more like an IG regiment that got reroll 1s on bolters.
It's strange that people seem to take BT's large number of Aspects to mean they don't have large amounts of the most numerous Aspect.
In my head Biel-Tan have loads of Shuriken weapons
Biel Tan also deploys balanced forces i.e. not just Avengers So a fluffy Biel Tan army has more non Avenger Aspects than Avengers. Space Marine Chapters have lots of Devastator Marines. They don't send just Devastators to war because that's dumb.
I don't see how that's an accurate comparison. The Avengers would be the tacticals
No they aren't. They're a shooting unit in realistic terms and an army of just them is easy to kill. Like an army of just Devastators.
That makes literally no sense.
It does. Unbalanced army = bad. Just Avengers = Unbalanced. Avenger spam = Not a good representation of Biel Tan.
Galef wrote: I'm still waiting to see if there is a "Webway" stratagem that allows a unit to 'deepstrike'. If it exists, I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
Consider the idea of Banshees in Wave Serpents for Saim Hann. The average charge distance with a reroll is nearly 9". Banshees get a 3" disembark, an 8" move and +3" on their charge move. That gives them an average threat range of 23" from the position of their Serpent at the start of the turn. Chuck in Jain Zar to lead them and negate Overwatch and you have a unit that can be deep in your opponent's deployment zone in T2 or jump on any unit that moves out of your opponents deployment zone on T1. Who needs Webway portals?
I was thinking more for Jetbikes so the fragile things don't have to be deployed on the board and be blasted away in the games they don't go first. The core of my army has always been Jetbikes since I started Eldar in 4th edition. Without some sort of deployment shenanigans or a DRAMATIC price decrease (like 20ppm max even with weapon upgrade) they just cannot compete in this meta. I loved dropping in Black Guardian Windriders at the end of 7th.
And why ware ups to you? Fluff be damned. I spent a lot of time painting building toy soldiers. Does not bother me one bit to change allegiance for better play. White scars can be black/red/blue. Makes no difference when you line up vs someone and they don’t get to have their fluffy Battle vs getting to play at all.
And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.
So... your answer would be that someone would need to buy and paint 2000 points of space marines and paint them blue to play ultramarines... but if they wanted to play a game as ravenwing they would have to buy a separate 2000 points of identical space marines, but paint them black?
Wow. GW must -love- you.
Considering Ravenwing are primarily Bikers and Ultramarines don't really help Bikers...that'd be a really weird thing.
Or did you mean Raven Guard?
In any regards, there's a bit of truth to what he's said. There has been trends over the years with a certain kind of player that builds a Marine army and hopscotches from book to book based upon which book gives them the best bonuses.
And whats the problem with that? Why we bash people for trying to be competitive picking the best totally arbitrary Rule GW just decide that edition to give to a random paint scheme they have choosen that is "fluffy"? (And as many people have seen, what GW think is fluffy and what other people thinks is fluffy can change)
As others have pointed out, one can arguee about "confusion". But if someone say "Ey, my Iron Hands don't use the Iron Hand bonus of a 6++, they use the Ravenguard One). Whats exactly the confusion with that? At the end of the day this just discourage using the official paint jobs.
"Man, I really like the Crimson Fists paint scheme... but well, that will arbitrarely fixed me to whatever GW want the rules of that subfaction to be"
And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.
So... your answer would be that someone would need to buy and paint 2000 points of space marines and paint them blue to play ultramarines... but if they wanted to play a game as ravenwing they would have to buy a separate 2000 points of identical space marines, but paint them black?
Wow. GW must -love- you.
Considering Ravenwing are primarily Bikers and Ultramarines don't really help Bikers...that'd be a really weird thing.
Or did you mean Raven Guard?
In any regards, there's a bit of truth to what he's said. There has been trends over the years with a certain kind of player that builds a Marine army and hopscotches from book to book based upon which book gives them the best bonuses.
And whats the problem with that? Why we bash people for trying to be competitive picking the best totally arbitrary Rule GW just decide that edition to give to a random paint scheme they have choosen that is "fluffy"? (And as many people have seen, what GW think is fluffy and what other people thinks is fluffy can change)
If you want to be disingenuous here, that's your perogative. It's not exactly a "random paint scheme" in regards to the "Big Names" for the Marines book.
As others have pointed out, one can arguee about "confusion". But if someone say "Ey, my Iron Hands don't use the Iron Hand bonus of a 6++, they use the Ravenguard One). Whats exactly the confusion with that?
The "confusion" is that you painted them and presumably even went out of your way to do iconography enough to show them to be Iron Hands. If someone sees that, they're going to immediately be able to identify it as "Oh he'll have FNPs".
Except then you throw at them "Nah, they're really Raven Guard".
It's one thing entirely for you to have created a scratch Chapter and play around with their parentage based on power levels--people might still grumble at you or tease you about being a powergamer, but it's the whole reason why they have encouraged you to make your own Chapters in the past.
Raven Guard are Raven Guard and Iron Hands are Iron Hands. If you don't like how your Iron Hands are playing this edition, make a slight effort and rejig parts of the paint scheme to match Raven Guard or one of their Successors--or rejig your paint scheme and make your own Chapter.
And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.
So... your answer would be that someone would need to buy and paint 2000 points of space marines and paint them blue to play ultramarines... but if they wanted to play a game as ravenwing they would have to buy a separate 2000 points of identical space marines, but paint them black?
Wow. GW must -love- you.
Considering Ravenwing are primarily Bikers and Ultramarines don't really help Bikers...that'd be a really weird thing.
Or did you mean Raven Guard?
In any regards, there's a bit of truth to what he's said. There has been trends over the years with a certain kind of player that builds a Marine army and hopscotches from book to book based upon which book gives them the best bonuses.
And whats the problem with that? Why we bash people for trying to be competitive picking the best totally arbitrary Rule GW just decide that edition to give to a random paint scheme they have choosen that is "fluffy"? (And as many people have seen, what GW think is fluffy and what other people thinks is fluffy can change)
As others have pointed out, one can arguee about "confusion". But if someone say "Ey, my Iron Hands don't use the Iron Hand bonus of a 6++, they use the Ravenguard One). Whats exactly the confusion with that? At the end of the day this just discourage using the official paint jobs.
"Man, I really like the Crimson Fists paint scheme... but well, that will arbitrarely fixed me to whatever GW want the rules of that subfaction to be"
I never said anyone needed to do anything. But some people have an ultramarine army because they like ultramarines. Not because ultramarines have the rules they want. If they want to use lots of bikes in one game, then they use lots of ultramarine bikes, and the ultramarines don't suddenly become some other chapter to get better rules. Other people just view the rules as just rules and their chapter is whatever chapter gives them the rules they want that game. It seems clear to me that those are two different kinds of gamers. Nothing wrong with either one, but obviously it says something about them.
Uriels_Flame wrote: And why ware ups to you? Fluff be damned. I spent a lot of time painting building toy soldiers. Does not bother me one bit to change allegiance for better play. White scars can be black/red/blue. Makes no difference when you line up vs someone and they don’t get to have their fluffy Battle vs getting to play at all.
Let's be honest:
It's not something that is really going to be pressed on the issue in a gaming club. Not often.
Not unless you really have made a habit of doing it in the past and/or are someone that people dislike for other reasons.
Galef wrote: I'm still waiting to see if there is a "Webway" stratagem that allows a unit to 'deepstrike'. If it exists, I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
Consider the idea of Banshees in Wave Serpents for Saim Hann. The average charge distance with a reroll is nearly 9". Banshees get a 3" disembark, an 8" move and +3" on their charge move. That gives them an average threat range of 23" from the position of their Serpent at the start of the turn. Chuck in Jain Zar to lead them and negate Overwatch and you have a unit that can be deep in your opponent's deployment zone in T2 or jump on any unit that moves out of your opponents deployment zone on T1. Who needs Webway portals?
You wouldn't want to use such a stratagem for CC units anyway, except possibly with Saim-Hann. Deep-striking CC is generally bad because you need to make a 9" charge. Where it would be great is for shooty units that otherwise need transports, like Guardians. Guardians have very efficient shooting at 12", but every at-most-96 point squad needs a 140 point Serpent to accomplish anything. A deep strike stratagem would let you drop 20 Guardians at their optimal range, and it's a big unit so benefits a great deal from psychic powers, other stratagems, and possibly Soulburst.
It's the Raven Guard infiltration stratagem which is much better for CC units, because if you get first turn you can know when you deploy the unit 9" away that you'll get to move and charge before your opponent can react. This one doesn't strike me as great for Eldar; it's not like we have anything close to as killy as Berzerkers to use with it. You could use a big unit of Wraithguard but they'd just get screened, and if you don't get first turn then they're kind of wasted, so you probably only want to gamble with units that can otherwise hop into a Serpent on turn 1.
And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.
So... your answer would be that someone would need to buy and paint 2000 points of space marines and paint them blue to play ultramarines... but if they wanted to play a game as ravenwing they would have to buy a separate 2000 points of identical space marines, but paint them black?
Wow. GW must -love- you.
Considering Ravenwing are primarily Bikers and Ultramarines don't really help Bikers...that'd be a really weird thing.
Or did you mean Raven Guard?
In any regards, there's a bit of truth to what he's said. There has been trends over the years with a certain kind of player that builds a Marine army and hopscotches from book to book based upon which book gives them the best bonuses.
And whats the problem with that? Why we bash people for trying to be competitive picking the best totally arbitrary Rule GW just decide that edition to give to a random paint scheme they have choosen that is "fluffy"? (And as many people have seen, what GW think is fluffy and what other people thinks is fluffy can change)
If you want to be disingenuous here, that's your perogative. It's not exactly a "random paint scheme" in regards to the "Big Names" for the Marines book.
As others have pointed out, one can arguee about "confusion". But if someone say "Ey, my Iron Hands don't use the Iron Hand bonus of a 6++, they use the Ravenguard One). Whats exactly the confusion with that?
The "confusion" is that you painted them and presumably even went out of your way to do iconography enough to show them to be Iron Hands. If someone sees that, they're going to immediately be able to identify it as "Oh he'll have FNPs".
Except then you throw at them "Nah, they're really Raven Guard".
It's one thing entirely for you to have created a scratch Chapter and play around with their parentage based on power levels--people might still grumble at you or tease you about being a powergamer, but it's the whole reason why they have encouraged you to make your own Chapters in the past.
Raven Guard are Raven Guard and Iron Hands are Iron Hands. If you don't like how your Iron Hands are playing this edition, make a slight effort and rejig parts of the paint scheme to match Raven Guard or one of their Successors--or rejig your paint scheme and make your own Chapter.
My Eldar are currently painted mostly in bone and black, with red accents. They're not Ulthwe though, I have my own craftworld and fluff for them. Does that mean I should feel guilty if I play someone and they think I should have Ulthwe rules? No, cos I told them what rules I have. If they forget, it's hardly my fault. It's not like I even know off by heart what ultramarine rules are, I'd have to check the rulebook.
Uriels_Flame wrote: And why ware ups to you? Fluff be damned. I spent a lot of time painting building toy soldiers. Does not bother me one bit to change allegiance for better play. White scars can be black/red/blue. Makes no difference when you line up vs someone and they don’t get to have their fluffy Battle vs getting to play at all.
agreed 100%.
Spend way too much money buying these, and then time painting them, that I would never let an opponent tell me i couldnt run my army as any specific craftworld, because they arent the right color...
IDC if you show up with a green Saim Hann army, as long as you say in the beginning that is your intent...
I am not expecting my opponents to have 4-5 of every unit of their army in each craftworld colors... thats insane
Galef wrote: I'm still waiting to see if there is a "Webway" stratagem that allows a unit to 'deepstrike'. If it exists, I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
You wouldn't want to use such a stratagem for CC units anyway, except possibly with Saim-Hann. Deep-striking CC is generally bad because you need to make a 9" charge.
In general I agree but Banshees could actually make it work. They get +3" to their charge move so you only need to roll a 6+ on 2D6 to make a charge after DS which is a 72% chance of success (92% with Saim Hann). Considering Banshees are only 16ppm, those are pretty good odds to throw some power-sword wielding cheerleaders into your opponent's key units.
Of course this assumes we get a Deep Strike Stratagem of some sort at all.
Kanluwen wrote: The "confusion" is that you painted them and presumably even went out of your way to do iconography enough to show them to be Iron Hands. If someone sees that, they're going to immediately be able to identify it as "Oh he'll have FNPs".
Except then you throw at them "Nah, they're really Raven Guard".
It's one thing entirely for you to have created a scratch Chapter and play around with their parentage based on power levels--people might still grumble at you or tease you about being a powergamer, but it's the whole reason why they have encouraged you to make your own Chapters in the past.
Raven Guard are Raven Guard and Iron Hands are Iron Hands. If you don't like how your Iron Hands are playing this edition, make a slight effort and rejig parts of the paint scheme to match Raven Guard or one of their Successors--or rejig your paint scheme and make your own Chapter.
i don't get people who have an issue with this. Who cares as long as the army is tabletop legal and everything is discussed and upfront beforehand?
I run a Biel Tan Aspect heavy army. In most of my games i don't run any Guardians/Avengers, the only Shuriken weapons i have are 10-13 Shuriken Pistols and a couple of Shuriken Cannons, i also run The Avatar so i almost never need to worry about morale. The Biel-Tan trait is practically useless for the type of army i bring to the tabletop and if my opponent has a problem with me using a different trait then i have no interest in playing that person.
Hell my next project is to convert an Alpha Legion army using Primaris Marines and i plan to chop and change between using them as Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion) or Space Marines (Omega Dragons custom chapter) as i see fit!
Kanluwen wrote: The "confusion" is that you painted them and presumably even went out of your way to do iconography enough to show them to be Iron Hands. If someone sees that, they're going to immediately be able to identify it as "Oh he'll have FNPs".
Except then you throw at them "Nah, they're really Raven Guard".
It's one thing entirely for you to have created a scratch Chapter and play around with their parentage based on power levels--people might still grumble at you or tease you about being a powergamer, but it's the whole reason why they have encouraged you to make your own Chapters in the past.
Raven Guard are Raven Guard and Iron Hands are Iron Hands. If you don't like how your Iron Hands are playing this edition, make a slight effort and rejig parts of the paint scheme to match Raven Guard or one of their Successors--or rejig your paint scheme and make your own Chapter.
i don't get people who have an issue with this. Who cares as long as the army is tabletop legal and everything is discussed and upfront beforehand?
I run a Biel Tan Aspect heavy army. In most of my games i don't run any Guardians/Avengers, the only Shuriken weapons i have are 10-13 Shuriken Pistols and a couple of Shuriken Cannons, i also run The Avatar so i almost never need to worry about morale. The Biel-Tan trait is practically useless for the type of army i bring to the tabletop and if my opponent has a problem with me using a different trait then i have no interest in playing that person.
Hell my next project is to convert an Alpha Legion army using Primaris Marines and i plan to chop and change between using them as Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion) or Space Marines (Omega Dragons custom chapter) as i see fit!
Yeh, I always use my own custom armies, whether it is my own craftworld or an Ork Mob. The colours I use are the ones I like the most for my particular theme. If they end up similar to a current army... well it's bound to happen. There's 20 space marine chapters (not even including the successor chapters) and they all have colour schemes. There are only so many colours to choose from.
In order to end up with a "unique" scheme, you'd pretty much have to go for the My Little Pony army in pink and lime green polka dots.
Am I the only one who doesn't think there's a problem with Iyanden Wraithlords + Saim-Hann Scat Bikes + Biel-Tan Vypers? Mix and match. If you really want to play the fluff, then play the fluff.
Every life is precious to them right? Severely depleted population constantly on the brink of extinction,they cant afford to lose any more precious aeldari. Well, they gave you a rule to reflect that...
I never said anyone needed to do anything. But some people have an ultramarine army because they like ultramarines. Not because ultramarines have the rules they want. If they want to use lots of bikes in one game, then they use lots of ultramarine bikes, and the ultramarines don't suddenly become some other chapter to get better rules. Other people just view the rules as just rules and their chapter is whatever chapter gives them the rules they want that game. It seems clear to me that those are two different kinds of gamers. Nothing wrong with either one, but obviously it says something about them.
It says mostly that GW made a huge design mistake, one that limits both players and model sales. Its especially rough when there is a mismatch with the background or when a specific unit or playstyle becomes the sole province of a specific sub-faction (see red eldar, or white marines).
Though personally I think guard got the most egregious version- if you didn't buy the right models 20 years ago, you can't run the kind of guard army you want, which is super crazy.
I will inevitably run 10 man Axeblades running up the board. On that day, I'll be running Iyanden. I will want to Fortune that huge investment, cuz a 6+++ won't cut it. If the enemy decides to focus them down with a ton of fire power/ Mortal Wounds I dont want to lose any more than I have to from bad Morale.
Overall, I dont play any specific craftworld and will gladly swap between them game to game if only to keep my opponents on their toes. Just another spice on thd rack to keep the flavor fresh.
As to Battle Focus, it easy to forget but Swooping Hawks fire Rapid Fire guns now. So, its specific wording isn't just for pistols.
And yeah, if someone has a nice army of one chapter of space marines, but today they are using the rules for a different chapter because it has better rules for the units they brought... yeah, I think that tells you something about that player.
Well that covers pretty much majority of players then...
It just tells players do what GW wants them to do.
I never said anyone needed to do anything. But some people have an ultramarine army because they like ultramarines. Not because ultramarines have the rules they want. If they want to use lots of bikes in one game, then they use lots of ultramarine bikes, and the ultramarines don't suddenly become some other chapter to get better rules. Other people just view the rules as just rules and their chapter is whatever chapter gives them the rules they want that game. It seems clear to me that those are two different kinds of gamers. Nothing wrong with either one, but obviously it says something about them.
It says mostly that GW made a huge design mistake, one that limits both players and model sales. Its especially rough when there is a mismatch with the background or when a specific unit or playstyle becomes the sole province of a specific sub-faction (see red eldar, or white marines).
Though personally I think guard got the most egregious version- if you didn't buy the right models 20 years ago, you can't run the kind of guard army you want, which is super crazy.
Yea such a huge design mistake they literally cannot make models fast enough to meet demand....
Galef wrote: I'm still waiting to see if there is a "Webway" stratagem that allows a unit to 'deepstrike'. If it exists, I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
You wouldn't want to use such a stratagem for CC units anyway, except possibly with Saim-Hann. Deep-striking CC is generally bad because you need to make a 9" charge.
In general I agree but Banshees could actually make it work. They get +3" to their charge move so you only need to roll a 6+ on 2D6 to make a charge after DS which is a 72% chance of success (92% with Saim Hann). Considering Banshees are only 16ppm, those are pretty good odds to throw some power-sword wielding cheerleaders into your opponent's key units.
Of course this assumes we get a Deep Strike Stratagem of some sort at all.
That's a good point, though like you said earlier Banshees have such a huge charge range that you don't actually need to deep strike them to get them where you want them. I do think that 16 points seems a bit high, though -- compare to Crusaders which have similar output but are far more durable for 15 points, and which have an even higher effective charge range than Banshees in Serpents when they ride in Valkyries.
Banshees at 16ppm sound great if you're playing against non-ultramarine space marines, other eldar or the "other xenos" like necrons, nids.. however, chaos, demons and guard just slaughter them with 4ppm models. It's all about force multipler stratagems. Eldar doesn't need some random deep strike tricks, it needs strategems that give flat bonuses to wound like chaos and guard has.
It'd be really nice if they made the Avatar (the real one, not that Yncarne silliness) capable of properly acting as the physical incarnation of a god that it is. Right now, that statline looks pretty mediocre. I know that GW has a nasty habit of letting everyone and their dog strangle them to death, but they should at least be on par with a greater daemon.
Fafnir wrote: It'd be really nice if they made the Avatar (the real one, not that Yncarne silliness) capable of properly acting as the physical incarnation of a god that it is. Right now, that statline looks pretty mediocre. I know that GW has a nasty habit of letting everyone and their dog strangle them to death, but they should at least be on par with a greater daemon.
Because they insist on using the hilariously small 2E model for the codex rather than the properly scaled FW version. Same reason the Keeper of Secrets and GUO get watered down rules compared to the new plastic greater daemons.
Fafnir wrote: It'd be really nice if they made the Avatar (the real one, not that Yncarne silliness) capable of properly acting as the physical incarnation of a god that it is. Right now, that statline looks pretty mediocre. I know that GW has a nasty habit of letting everyone and their dog strangle them to death, but they should at least be on par with a greater daemon.
I've played him several times and he works very well. As the Warlord, I take the+1 attack and he has done a lot of great work. His damage output is extremely good and rerolls for assault gets him into assault quicker than my opponents suspect. Overall, I found him to be one of the more reliable units in Craftworld. Hoping the codex even further improves him.
Calling BS on a paint scheme confusing you. Every army has a unique combo of attributes. If you can't keep army wide attributes straight because of the color of the models, you aren't playing at a very competitive level to begin with. Don't blame the other guy for your shortcomings.
xmbk wrote: Calling BS on a paint scheme confusing you. Every army has a unique combo of attributes. If you can't keep army wide attributes straight because of the color of the models, you aren't playing at a very competitive level to begin with. Don't blame the other guy for your shortcomings.
I would also say to paint scheme swappers: Dont get insulted when people jab you for being a powergamer and a waac player. You painted your army how you liked, now that suddenly that matters, you are throwing away any pretense of loyalty for a bit of extra power.
Orock wrote: You painted your army how you liked, now that suddenly that matters, you are throwing away any pretense of loyalty for a bit of extra power.
xmbk wrote: Calling BS on a paint scheme confusing you. Every army has a unique combo of attributes. If you can't keep army wide attributes straight because of the color of the models, you aren't playing at a very competitive level to begin with. Don't blame the other guy for your shortcomings.
I would also say to paint scheme swappers: Dont get insulted when people jab you for being a powergamer and a waac player. You painted your army how you liked, now that suddenly that matters, you are throwing away any pretense of loyalty for a bit of extra power.
You signature mentions you play Tau. So I suppose you already know which Sept you'll be playing when the codex drops, no matter the rules.
xmbk wrote: Calling BS on a paint scheme confusing you. Every army has a unique combo of attributes. If you can't keep army wide attributes straight because of the color of the models, you aren't playing at a very competitive level to begin with. Don't blame the other guy for your shortcomings.
I would also say to paint scheme swappers: Dont get insulted when people jab you for being a powergamer and a waac player. You painted your army how you liked, now that suddenly that matters, you are throwing away any pretense of loyalty for a bit of extra power.
You signature mentions you play Tau. So I suppose you already know which Sept you'll be playing when the codex drops, no matter the rules.
Septs aren't based on the color of the model or the style of their wargear.
xmbk wrote: Calling BS on a paint scheme confusing you. Every army has a unique combo of attributes. If you can't keep army wide attributes straight because of the color of the models, you aren't playing at a very competitive level to begin with. Don't blame the other guy for your shortcomings.
I would also say to paint scheme swappers: Dont get insulted when people jab you for being a powergamer and a waac player. You painted your army how you liked, now that suddenly that matters, you are throwing away any pretense of loyalty for a bit of extra power.
You signature mentions you play Tau. So I suppose you already know which Sept you'll be playing when the codex drops, no matter the rules.
Septs aren't based on the color of the model or the style of their wargear.
Septs are based on the markings' color.
And some kits come with decals with the tau icons, so you can definitely paint your Tau models as part of a specific sept.
xmbk wrote: Calling BS on a paint scheme confusing you. Every army has a unique combo of attributes. If you can't keep army wide attributes straight because of the color of the models, you aren't playing at a very competitive level to begin with. Don't blame the other guy for your shortcomings.
I would also say to paint scheme swappers: Dont get insulted when people jab you for being a powergamer and a waac player. You painted your army how you liked, now that suddenly that matters, you are throwing away any pretense of loyalty for a bit of extra power.
You signature mentions you play Tau. So I suppose you already know which Sept you'll be playing when the codex drops, no matter the rules.
Septs aren't based on the color of the model or the style of their wargear.
Septs are based on the markings' color.
Except the Sept colors aren't always utilized even in the fluff. Nor are the actual Sept insignia.
You might have some form of a case for faction loyalty if the rules for said factions had any consistency across editions. GW changes rules like the wind shifts direction.
In a game that has historically struggled with any sense of balanced play, you cannot put players at fault for trying to give themselves something resembling a fair hand when it comes to rules, regardless of which lore/paint scheme they fancy.
More on-topic, are we fairly certain that Eldar traits will apply to all their <Craftworld> units now? Unlike SM who are limited to infantry, bikes and dreads?
Oh dat 8th balance.
xmbk wrote: Calling BS on a paint scheme confusing you. Every army has a unique combo of attributes. If you can't keep army wide attributes straight because of the color of the models, you aren't playing at a very competitive level to begin with. Don't blame the other guy for your shortcomings.
I would also say to paint scheme swappers: Dont get insulted when people jab you for being a powergamer and a waac player. You painted your army how you liked, now that suddenly that matters, you are throwing away any pretense of loyalty for a bit of extra power.
Most people's paint schemes came before these new chapter tactics, Forgeworld dogmas etc. I hate that we now have a system forcing a playstyle or unit selections onto people based on a paint scheme which, let's be honest, held no relevance to gaming at the time of choosing.
My ad mech and dark Eldar are home brews anyway, so I'll play them as something different whenever I feel like it. But it's because I like to have fun and try different lists and make the most of the variety an army has to offer. I chose to collect an army, not a specific Forgeworld or Kabal.
I would also say to paint scheme swappers: Dont get insulted when people jab you for being a powergamer and a waac player. You painted your army how you liked, now that suddenly that matters, you are throwing away any pretense of loyalty for a bit of extra power.
"Sorry pal, you need to use X rules because you painted your plastic army men Blue. Whereas that player across the room can use any rules because he painted his plastic army men Orange"
If the army is legal nobody worth playing is going to care. Don't let a paint scheme prevent you from having full access to the options in your army book.
And this is why I'm glad I've always selected my own unique paint schemes. My playstyle has always favored jetbikes, so I've claimed to be Saim-Hann and do have some red on my models, however there is also a good deal of yellow and mostly black with green edges (like the traditional Dark Eldar scheme).
My paint scheme conveniently matches with Ynnari, but at the end of the day, I hold "loyalty" to the playstyle, not the Craftworld. I started Eldar because I could build a list whose core was Jetbikes. That traditionally has been Saim-Hann, but as long as I can field a super fast army with mobile firepower, I'll pick whichever attribute supports that playstyle (which are this point could be Biel-tan, Ulthwe or Saim-hann)
I've also been mixing Dark Eldar units into my list since it was legal, although they have been converted and painted to look more like Corsairs. So my stance on this whole issue it that you can use whatever attribute YOU feel fits your army, whether that be for theme or game-play benefit.
Note that the Warhammer Live Twitch stream will have a preview of the new Craftsworlds codex in a few hours (17:00 pm GMT+1). Have your notepads and screencapture applications ready!
See? Like I said. There are different kinds of players, and these craftworld rules really make it obvious if a persons army is based on liking the background or liking the rules.
Albino Squirrel wrote: See? Like I said. There are different kinds of players, and these craftworld rules really make it obvious if a persons army is based on liking the background or liking the rules.
And something to also keep in mind is that it isn't as black-n-white as fluff vs rules. For example, I pick rules that fit my personal fluff, which is a Corsair group made up of a mix of Saim-Hann exiles, Kabalite mercenaries and "freed" Aspect warriors that were once slaves made to fight in the Wych arenas and Incubi temples. I've never liked using Forgeworld rules, so I prefer mixing up the CWE and DE unit rules.
Depending on what kind of list I want to play, I could take the Saim-Hann attribute to benefit bikes with Scatter lasers and benefit my Scorpions or Shining Spears Or in a different game, I could take the Beil-tan attribute to benefit my Shuricannon bikes, Fire Dragons and Shining Spears
Since my gaming group is big enough, I tend to play different people who may or may not remember that I used Saim-Hann in one game or Biel-tan in another. As long as I am clear from that start and consistent throughout the game, that's all they care about.
This same old argument has been going on for years, but frankly I dont understand it. I started a space wolves army in the early 90's- I have thousands of points painted but it has taken 20 years. I can't paint faster and GW doesnt give the models away for free. Why should I let a paint scheme restrict how I play the game. You dont think playing the game the same way for 20 years gets boring? Now, SW to Marines isnt even a good comparison, because many of the same models are used across the board. Eldar craftworlds favor certain units which makes playstyle from Craftworld to Craftworld extremely different in some cases, in a good way. Just because someone wants a bike themed army and wants rules to justify that doesnt make them that guy. You can actually use rules without abusing them. Maybe we should somehow track which players paint their models compared to those that don't as someone who buys a fully painted army on ebay hasnt gone through all the toil to get those models on the battlefield- maybe that makes them that guy too because they have more money than time (so essentially the money means less to them).
Can we just drop the whole mess. This thread isnt about what types of players do what, its about the new eldar codex and rules. Honestly, everyone plays differently and one way isn't better than another. Some people dont want to forge the narrative, they just want to roll dice and move models around, some folks could care less about the game, they just want to paint models and to be fair, you can find people in each aspect of the game you might disagree with, but who says your style is more fair or morale than theirs?
Automatically Appended Next Post: There's a lot here.
Images:
So everything gets -1 to hit, possibly even flyers?
Rangers are 12 points (pretty nice).
Fire Prisms get Grinding Advance (but still shoot at -1 if they move I think).
Prisms can link fire to re-roll hits and wounds as long as they all shoot the same thing (this is great).
Also noteworthy: Alatoic did not get the infiltration stratagem, so if there's any sort of deep striking stratagem it's generic.
Albino Squirrel wrote: See? Like I said. There are different kinds of players, and these craftworld rules really make it obvious if a persons army is based on liking the background or liking the rules.
And something to also keep in mind is that it isn't as black-n-white as fluff vs rules. For example, I pick rules that fit my personal fluff, which is a Corsair group made up of a mix of Saim-Hann exiles, Kabalite mercenaries and "freed" Aspect warriors that were once slaves made to fight in the Wych arenas and Incubi temples.
I've never liked using Forgeworld rules, so I prefer mixing up the CWE and DE unit rules.
Depending on what kind of list I want to play, I could take the Saim-Hann attribute to benefit bikes with Scatter lasers and benefit my Scorpions or Shining Spears
Or in a different game, I could take the Beil-tan attribute to benefit my Shuricannon bikes, Fire Dragons and Shining Spears
Since my gaming group is big enough, I tend to play different people who may or may not remember that I used Saim-Hann in one game or Biel-tan in another. As long as I am clear from that start and consistent throughout the game, that's all they care about.
-
I'm pretty similar, I guess. I think of my Eldar as corsairs that sometimes come to the aid of a craftworld. Their leader is from Iyanden, though I swear I came up with this back in 2nd edition, which I think is before there was a Prince Yriel. So I would sometimes play with lots of guardians to represent mostly the corsairs, or sometimes lots of Wraith guard/lords to represent the Iyanden allies, or a mix in a big game. I guess now I could make it two detachments if I wanted, one Iyanden and one maybe Alaitoc (or just nothing). But still, I wouldn't hesitate to have one of my guardian squads of corsairs show up in the mostly Iyanden army, or a unit of Iyanden wraithguard in my corsair army.
I kind of wish, if they aren't going to have any unit restrictions on the craftworlds, that they at least had some strategems that are specific to "generic" craftworlds, or for people who make up their own craftworld that doesn't fit one of those molds.
I wonder what they're going to do with falcons. I have three because they're supposed to be dedicated transports for my corsairs (thanks again forge world) and I want to have them do something again in the game.
So take 2 Prisms, deploy them all out of LoS. Move one of them out 6-7" to target a unit. Use the Linked Fire stratagem to fire 4x at the target re-rolling hits and wounds. Then use the Fire and Fade stratagem to move the first Prism back out of LoS.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I wonder what they're going to do with falcons. I have three because they're supposed to be dedicated transports for my corsairs (thanks again forge world) and I want to have them do something again in the game.
I was curious about the Falcon as well. I hope this doesn't mean they just left it rotting in unplayability.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I wonder what they're going to do with falcons. I have three because they're supposed to be dedicated transports for my corsairs (thanks again forge world) and I want to have them do something again in the game.
I was curious about the Falcon as well. I hope this doesn't mean they just left it rotting in unplayability.
Falcons rules are fine as is, they just need to be noticably cheaper than a Serpent. As in 3/4 the cost. If a Serpent is 160pts, a Falcon should be 120pts
Galef wrote: So take 2 Prisms, deploy them all out of LoS. Move one of them out 6-7" to target a unit. Use the Linked Fire stratagem to fire 4x at the target re-rolling hits and wounds. Then use the Fire and Fade stratagem to move the first Prism back out of LoS.
Viable tactic?
Considering the Prism shoot modes, it can wreck armored targets easily, also not need to use the Fire and Fade unless you really need the tank to remain safe.
Leaving it in the open for 1 turn will force the enemy to throw some firepower at it, only to see how it moves back into cover and the 2nd new one pops out able to repeat the same trick, add Iyanden trait and you can use them as both beatstick and fire magnets knowing they'll be able to run at nearly 100% efficiency after 2-3 turns of enemy focus on them.
Quite useful to allow our troops get into position.
P.S: just realized this makes the Nightspinner pretty much obsolete, unless you need it to attack out of LoS infantry, a Fire Prism dispersed mode firing 2x times per turn can deal more damage due the added -ap
Raven Guard attribute - as expected. HOWEVER i doesn't look like it rules out any units (i.e flyers etc). This might be listed independently in the codex though... Hopefully... Fire Prism section implies this attribute affects tanks, so it might also work on flyers. This also appears to stack with existing bonuses, so, -3 to hit units here we come!
8 point reduction for rangers! Now 12 points a model!
Alaitoc stratagem affects Rangers only. 1CP. Use at the start of enemy shooting phase. 1 unit of Rangers can only be hit on 6's regardless of modifiers. (not massively seeing the point in this, as most things will be shooting them on 5's and 6's anyway when this attribute is active.)
Fire prism gets the Leman Russ shoot twice rule!
Fire Prism stratagem is... Strong. Linking shots together for 1cp (requirement 60" range and visible to each other) means shots ignore range limits, don't need LoS, re-roll hits AND re-roll wounds! All fire prisms that link must shoot the same target. I presume this works alongside the shoot twice rule, but might need clarifying. 4D6str 6 -3 no LoS, re-roll hits and wounds. Going to cause some serious infantry damage (12 geq, 9 mew, 3 teq)
As everyone predicted, this is likely going to be the craftworld everyone uses - especially if flyers gain the attribute.
I hope the other grav tanks get a similar shoot twice rule, but we'll see.
Falcons rules are fine as is, they just need to be noticably cheaper than a Serpent. As in 3/4 the cost. If a Serpent is 160pts, a Falcon should be 120pts
Of course a recost is all it would take, that's true of almost anything. I just would have liked to see a points change mentioned somewhere, because I love my grav tanks.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I wonder what they're going to do with falcons. I have three because they're supposed to be dedicated transports for my corsairs (thanks again forge world) and I want to have them do something again in the game.
I was curious about the Falcon as well. I hope this doesn't mean they just left it rotting in unplayability.
The name of the rule is "Pulsed Laser Discharge", the main gun on a Falcon is a "Pulse Laser". I'm feeling optimistic.
Galef wrote: So take 2 Prisms, deploy them all out of LoS. Move one of them out 6-7" to target a unit. Use the Linked Fire stratagem to fire 4x at the target re-rolling hits and wounds. Then use the Fire and Fade stratagem to move the first Prism back out of LoS.
Viable tactic?
was thinking the same thing....have to weigh the 2 cp per round vs your total dmg output and your total cps
Kdash wrote: Raven Guard attribute - as expected. HOWEVER i doesn't look like it rules out any units (i.e flyers etc). This might be listed independently in the codex though... Hopefully... Fire Prism section implies this attribute affects tanks, so it might also work on flyers. This also appears to stack with existing bonuses, so, -3 to hit units here we come!
8 point reduction for rangers! Now 12 points a model!
Alaitoc stratagem affects Rangers only. 1CP. Use at the start of enemy shooting phase. 1 unit of Rangers can only be hit on 6's regardless of modifiers. (not massively seeing the point in this, as most things will be shooting them on 5's and 6's anyway when this attribute is active.)
Fire prism gets the Leman Russ shoot twice rule!
Fire Prism stratagem is... Strong. Linking shots together for 1cp (requirement 60" range and visible to each other) means shots ignore range limits, don't need LoS, re-roll hits AND re-roll wounds! All fire prisms that link must shoot the same target. I presume this works alongside the shoot twice rule, but might need clarifying. 4D6str 6 -3 no LoS, re-roll hits and wounds. Going to cause some serious infantry damage (12 geq, 9 mew, 3 teq)
As everyone predicted, this is likely going to be the craftworld everyone uses - especially if flyers gain the attribute.
I hope the other grav tanks get a similar shoot twice rule, but we'll see.
Be wary at least the 1st Fire Prism choosing to link fire must Target a unit normally (within LoS and range) and then you play the stratagem for the others.
the fire prism it's awsome...you can get rid of a 2 super heavy thank in 3 turns with two of them and some support ...I'll buy my second soon I bet.
Damn -1 to hit is definetly great if it's really applied to everyone and with conceal still in the game...it will be nice to see how a guard player will face an army with a gunline -2 to it with some warlocks mixed in,
I don't want to say nothing about the hemlock -3 to be hit :O, if they give this to flyers as well they are fething crazy
Yeah, as good as all these stratagems are, it doesn't look like we'll be able to compete with armies that can get nearly 20CPs. Most Eldar lists I've seen have 5-7CPs, 9 at most.
Eldar will burn through CP really fast and if they don't pay off, the game could go downhill fast.
I truly think this will keep Eldar from being top tier this edition...which is ok I guess. Eldar are at least looking to be very playable.
I typically want my prisms visible, but in cover if possible. Across the whole board, if something can reach it, they can reach something less durable than a Prism. Out of LOS is nice, but not a big deal for them for that reason.
Bharring wrote: I typically want my prisms visible, but in cover if possible. Across the whole board, if something can reach it, they can reach something less durable than a Prism. Out of LOS is nice, but not a big deal for them for that reason.
I have the complete opposite experience over the last few editions. If an opponent can see my tanks, they try to kill them first even if their are plenty of closer targets, often because certain weapons are ideal against tanks. This is just as true in 8th due to the Damage characteristic (Lascannons want to shoot at targets with 6 or more wounds).
Being out of LoS ensures that Prisms (one of the most valuable units in my army) can continue to be a threat.
I never said anyone needed to do anything. But some people have an ultramarine army because they like ultramarines. Not because ultramarines have the rules they want. If they want to use lots of bikes in one game, then they use lots of ultramarine bikes, and the ultramarines don't suddenly become some other chapter to get better rules. Other people just view the rules as just rules and their chapter is whatever chapter gives them the rules they want that game. It seems clear to me that those are two different kinds of gamers. Nothing wrong with either one, but obviously it says something about them.
It says mostly that GW made a huge design mistake, one that limits both players and model sales. Its especially rough when there is a mismatch with the background or when a specific unit or playstyle becomes the sole province of a specific sub-faction (see red eldar, or white marines).
Though personally I think guard got the most egregious version- if you didn't buy the right models 20 years ago, you can't run the kind of guard army you want, which is super crazy.
Yea such a huge design mistake they literally cannot make models fast enough to meet demand....
Even if that assertion is true, I said design mistake, not marketing mistake. And not one that trumps the other design mistake with guard- that they're simply a collection of 'I win' buttons now.
@Kanluwen- that was true of Marine chapters once upon a time as well. There were alternate color schemes for marine chapters in different environments and came patterns as well. Sadly, it has wandered of the background in favor of you must be Color X to have bonus Y.
@ Voss That assertion is true, theres is a thread dedicated to it on here for feths sake. The assertions about design flaws are all yours and based purely on your subjective view. Maybe if you could explain what the glaring flaws are rather then simply say there are flaws. Is the game perfect, obviously not, but it's at a state thatsbetter then ever before which is why people can't even get the product they want fast enough. That IS all that one needs to look to in order to know the game is in a healthier place.
As for the endless whinging based on speculation only in here, hey look, they reduced costs and made prisms leman russ x10 and gave them even more dope stratagems! As I said countless pages back, the craftworld traits like every other books traits were never going to be some massive sweeping set of rules, just seasoning.
Albino Squirrel wrote: See? Like I said. There are different kinds of players, and these craftworld rules really make it obvious if a persons army is based on liking the background or liking the rules.
My army colour is chosen because of liking a particular colour scheme for my army, and I have my own Craftworld name and fluff for it. So despite my army scheme being similar to Ulthwe, my fluff is different. As for which Craftworld trait I would choose, i don't know yet. So which category does this put me in? I'll be picking the rules that match my fluff the best, which means I'll be picking because I like the background and I like the rules.
This is disappointing to hear. If nids aren't made competitive we know 8th edition is taking the focus not just narratively on to the Imperium but game and rule wise too.
Red Corsair wrote: As for the endless whinging based on speculation only in here, hey look, they reduced costs and made prisms leman russ x10 and gave them even more dope stratagems! As I said countless pages back, the craftworld traits like every other books traits were never going to be some massive sweeping set of rules, just seasoning.
And power level isn't what people have had an issue with. To use your seasoning euphemism, people ordered honey roasted, and got lemon pepper instead. Is it bad? No. Is it what was asked for? Absolutely not. So yeah, buffs to shurikens instead of aspect warrior (+1 Ld really isn't a buff for that army, just extra notation) especially when several aspects need buffs to be viable again, is a bit of a raw deal. Same with Iyanden. It's a cool trait, but it isn't a huge buff to what GW has said is the core to Iyanden; the wraithguard. So the "toughest" faction isn't tougher, the psychic faction is the most durable. The faction that uses the least shuriken weapons got a buff to those. The only ones that fit their craftworlds are Saimhan, and Alatoc. A 40% success rate sucks.
oh god yessss....deep striking for infantry for 1 cp, deep strike for VEHICLES for 1 cp, reaper launchers dropped to 22, dire avangers 12 pts, time warp for warlocks.....ahahahah we are fething back guys
Marfuzzo wrote: oh god yessss....deep striking for infantry for 1 cp, deep strike for VEHICLES for 1 cp, reaper launchers dropped to 22, dire avangers 12 pts.....ahahahah we are fething back guys
Marfuzzo wrote: oh god yessss....deep striking for infantry for 1 cp, deep strike for VEHICLES for 1 cp, reaper launchers dropped to 22, dire avangers 12 pts.....ahahahah we are fething back guys
So can <Bikes>, Wraithlords or WKs deepstrike?
I would bet only the old skimmer tanks
I cant stop thinking about my shining spears with a "time warp" of a warlock, they can chrage basically what they want the first turn
Marfuzzo wrote: oh god yessss....deep striking for infantry for 1 cp, deep strike for VEHICLES for 1 cp, reaper launchers dropped to 22, dire avangers 12 pts.....ahahahah we are fething back guys
So can <Bikes>, Wraithlords or WKs deepstrike?
I would bet only the old skimmer tanks
But, but...Black Guardian Windrider Webway Assault. I assume the Vehicle WW counts them as moving? So no dropping in a Serpent full of Wraithgurd for them to disembark immediately?
Galef wrote: Well, I think this speaks well of this edition. Fluffy (or unfluffy depending on your opinion) sub-faction bonuses should not be meant to radically change how a Faction performs. They literally exist to provide flavor, i.e. fun to the game.
Attributes/Traits should be like adding chocolate syrup to a scoop of vanilla ice cream: Just a little extra flavor that adds no nutritional value whatsoever. Stratagems are the cherries on top: they cost a bit extra, but tend to be the part you remember.
But what people seem to be expecting are extra scoops of chocolate and strawberry ice cream added between 2 halves of a banana, drizzled with chocolate and caramel syrup and topped with cherries and strawberries.
You can't have it all, and if you do, you'll get diabetes (i.e. player's hatred) just like 7th ed Eldar.
-
This is much friendlier version of what I wanted to say. Have an exalt for the clever and well put analogy.
The guard book is good because of the point costs on things. They just have more then anyone else. The doctrines are not actually that great. Somehow people are equating guard units from the index that were good, remaining good while poor units (russes) becoming playable again to their doctrines. Someone point out which guard doctrine is so amazing? It's the cheap special weapon carriers and countless immovable bodies that make them so good.
Exactly. Outside a few complaints I have here and there, everything outside the Guard codex seems to be pretty balanced all things considered. At the least, I wouldn't feel bad playing semi-competitive now instead of full-on. First time I can say that in years.
Night Spinner down in points.
Falcon down for 50 points.
Windriders in Fast Attack.
New spells: Executioners (mortal wounds spell), Will of Asuryan (something morale buffing) - 6 spells in total
warlord trait: everything on 6" autopass morale test :O
webway assault: 1-3 CP to infiltrate
cloud strike: 1 CP vehicle deep strike
Quicken/Restrain: friendly unit within 18" moves again
Protect: +1 armor save (infantry/bikes only probably)
Fate: guide, doom, fortune, executioner (mws), something that gives fearless, mind war
Ynnari can't use "rules"
Attributes apply to everything including flyers
Reapers: 81 points for 3. launcher was 31 now 22
Shining Spears: down 6 to 18
Avengers: 12 points
banshees: no overwatch, advance and charge, +3" charge, can choose things 15" away to charge
Jain Zar: banshees fight first
war walkers: outflank
warp spiders: deep strike
hawks: assault 4, 13 points
scorpions: cheaper
wraithknight: no real changes
hemlock: now -2 Ld aura and cheaper
nightspinners: cheaper
falcon: 50 points cheaper
storm guardians: unchanged
windriders: 18 points w/ catapults, 28 w/ cannon (possibly didn't realize that catapults cost points)
scatter lasers: 15 points
wl traits:
mark of hunter: warlord can snipe characters
+2 move to wl alatoic puritanical leader: 6" fearless aura
Ulthwe: command point at start of turn on a 6
Remnants:
Phoenix Gem: when slain, on a 2+ do d3 mortal wounds, if kill something then bearer comes back with 1 wound
Gamgee wrote: This is disappointing to hear. If nids aren't made competitive we know 8th edition is taking the focus not just narratively on to the Imperium but game and rule wise too.
What are you on about? - Eldar got a MAJOR boost, esepcially since attributes apply to all units unlike all codexs to date
the_scotsman wrote: with 12ppm Avengers and Rangers and neither Guardian type getting a reduction in cost, what's the point of using guardians again?
Storm Guardians are still double-priced Chaos Cultists then. That's disappointing.
Even if the avenger catapults are free, Guardians still shoot 25% better when they're in range and are only 6% less durable compared to a 5-man Avenger squad with dual-wielding Exarch, so may still make sense as suicide drops from a Serpent, which is probably what you're using Avengers for too.
After this codex reading I only have few things to say....
1 [MOD EDIT - Please don't try to circumvent the expletive filter - thanks! Alpharius] the traits, playb what do you like, as ulthwe I can get the same bonus of the other traits with psichic powers and viceversa
2 super drop in points guys, the thing we needed, with somne really nice buffs
3 we are definetly one of the fastest army in the game now...nothing to envy to tyranids really
Looks like a really impressive selection of discounts and buffs. I might actually be able to manage to field a Battalion now.
I am surprised at the Hemlock getting a discount as it is one of the best aircraft in the game and the Alaitoc trait helps it even more. I wonder if it will be getting some sort of nerf to balance?
The only disappointment is the Wraithknight. I got great mileage out of mine in 7th but I think he will be reduced to a display piece. :(
With all the buffs in form of stratagems, Craftworld Traits, Psychic powers, etc... I don't know if the Wraithknight will need a point reduction.
You could end like Baneblades. You put too many buffs on a "weak" unit and then is pretty possible to make them more stronger than they should.
Personally, I'm sad with all the discounts (Obviously not all of them). But I was glad when the Indexes came and units (Specially vehicles) where more expensive, because playing a 2k army didn't needed as many models as in 7th.
For balance hotfixes, I prefer to change the rules and make units more powerfull if they are overpriced, instead of just making them cheaper.
You can make a Stompa 250 points and it would be powerfull, but something as big shouldn't cost less than 500p, for saying a random number. Make it powerfull enough to compensate.
The same goes for Eldar Rangers, or Wraithknights, etc...
I would guess that this was finalized pretty early on in the edition, though post-release. They knew that they were nerfing flyers to get the Stormraven and it wasn't yet widely known that the Hemlock was really great.
Just checked in...and the leaks are almost everything I was hoping for. Eldar will easily be competitive with some builds...and at least not wildly overpriced crap as they have been lately. Colour me happy. Vastly better news than any of the leaked traits --- the points reductions and new powers etc. are legitimate.
ph34r wrote: Wow, those are some serious buffs. Should I start feeling salty as a Mechanicus player? I'm gonna go get my salt.
Eldar have an above average codex. I don't think anyone's salt here was or still is merited...
I mean, some people went overboard about how the whole thing would be bad when that was obviously going to depend mostly on point costs and unit rules, but I think it's perfectly fair for basically everyone except Ulthwe and Alatoic fans to be annoyed about the traits.
ph34r wrote: Wow, those are some serious buffs. Should I start feeling salty as a Mechanicus player? I'm gonna go get my salt.
Eldar have an above average codex. I don't think anyone's salt here was or still is merited...
I mean, some people went overboard about how the whole thing would be bad when that was obviously going to depend mostly on point costs and unit rules, but I think it's perfectly fair for basically everyone except Ulthwe and Alatoic fans to be annoyed about the traits.
If you want to play fluff, don't expect competitive benefits for the troops you ENJOY playing. It is actually very hard to make one attribute that applies to multiple units without imbalancing the codexes with the most unit options. (See Guard for a good example.)
If you want to play fluff, don't expect competitive benefits for the troops you ENJOY playing. It is actually very hard to make one attribute that applies to multiple units without imbalancing the codexes with the most unit options. (See Guard for a good example.)
This seems like a pretty weird response to me. Like, first, okay, but it still seems perfectly reasonable to be annoyed if the Craftworld you enjoy seems to have been left behind. Second, "it's hard to balance traits that hit everything" does not really seem to be something that was on their minds, right? Alatoic's trait is absolutely nuts on things like flyers and Shadow Spectres -- they have the one trait that everyone knew going in was really, really dangerous if applied to everything. Meanwhile Biel-Tan can't even get re-roll 1s for Swooping Hawks, and Iyanden ends up with something that's almost strictly worse than Ulthwe's.
ph34r wrote: Wow, those are some serious buffs. Should I start feeling salty as a Mechanicus player? I'm gonna go get my salt.
Eldar have an above average codex. I don't think anyone's salt here was or still is merited...
I mean, some people went overboard about how the whole thing would be bad when that was obviously going to depend mostly on point costs and unit rules, but I think it's perfectly fair for basically everyone except Ulthwe and Alatoic fans to be annoyed about the traits.
If you want to play fluff, don't expect competitive benefits for the troops you ENJOY playing. It is actually very hard to make one attribute that applies to multiple units without imbalancing the codexes with the most unit options. (See Guard for a good example.)
So you'd expect me to use Biel-Tan's trait in an all Aspect army that has no Shuriken Weapons (other than a few pistols) and The Avatar making the +1 Ld worthless? No thanks.
ph34r wrote: Wow, those are some serious buffs. Should I start feeling salty as a Mechanicus player? I'm gonna go get my salt.
Eldar have an above average codex. I don't think anyone's salt here was or still is merited...
I mean, some people went overboard about how the whole thing would be bad when that was obviously going to depend mostly on point costs and unit rules, but I think it's perfectly fair for basically everyone except Ulthwe and Alatoic fans to be annoyed about the traits.
In fairness, the traits were a little underwhelming, and I don't think ANYONE was expecting the points changes to be so significant. I was expecting drops of maybe 1 or 2 points per model... Rangers being almost HALF PRICE made me actually giggle a little bit in surprise. I'm at work, so I may have drawn a couple of funny looks. Always liked Rangers, but they've never been good... sniper rules are generally bad and they were always expensive. Now they are actually viable. Still not great, but for a troops choice being able to spam shots at character and still be tough to kill is actually a possible niche. I'm probably going to forgo guardians and avengers and actually take Rangers as troops.
My lists from the index had ZERO troops, because I didnt like guardians (plus they're awful) and Rangers were so expensive it took too much from my other units to field even one or two squads, and 10 rangers can barely do anything. Now I'm actually tempted to take 30 rangers for 360 points...
And Falcons dropping by 50 points? That's about 500% more of a discount than I was expecting.
Overall, great changes. The only potential issue I might have for it is if the WK is not reduced in price, or bumped in T, or something. I don't want it to be as obscenely good as it was in 7th, but as it currently is, it is hot garbage. You're literally better of taking 2 Prisms and any melee unit, and still having points left over Which truly is a shame because it is one of my favorite models GW has ever produced.
Alpharius wrote: Ah, sorry, I thought someone had an early copy or was going off of leaked info - my apologies!
Those who get early copies seem to be under a NDA (or some such agreement) until after the codex goes on preorder. Expect to see some info Saturday at the earliest.
If you want to play fluff, don't expect competitive benefits for the troops you ENJOY playing. It is actually very hard to make one attribute that applies to multiple units without imbalancing the codexes with the most unit options. (See Guard for a good example.)
This seems like a pretty weird response to me. Like, first, okay, but it still seems perfectly reasonable to be annoyed if the Craftworld you enjoy seems to have been left behind. Second, "it's hard to balance traits that hit everything" does not really seem to be something that was on their minds, right? Alatoic's trait is absolutely nuts on things like flyers and Shadow Spectres -- they have the one trait that everyone knew going in was really, really dangerous if applied to everything. Meanwhile Biel-Tan can't even get re-roll 1s for Swooping Hawks, and Iyanden ends up with something that's almost strictly worse than Ulthwe's.
I don't think any of the Craftworlds have been left behind. But then again, I am an AdMech player, and only two of our seven Forge Worlds have any use whatsoever.
I meant that it is hard to make powerful traits that broadly apply to multiple model types while remaining balanced. -1 to hit at 12" does seem to be the strongest generic though. I definitely enjoy the AdMech version, which is paired with an Infiltrate stratagem.
Actually, I think Iyanden's is better than Ulthwe's in some circumstances.
So you'd expect me to use Biel-Tan's trait in an all Aspect army that has no Shuriken Weapons (other than a few pistols) and The Avatar making the +1 Ld worthless? No thanks.
Uh yeah. Where'd you get the idea that Biel-Tan Aspect Warriors eschew Shuriken weapons?
If you want to play fluff, don't expect competitive benefits for the troops you ENJOY playing. It is actually very hard to make one attribute that applies to multiple units without imbalancing the codexes with the most unit options. (See Guard for a good example.)
This seems like a pretty weird response to me. Like, first, okay, but it still seems perfectly reasonable to be annoyed if the Craftworld you enjoy seems to have been left behind. Second, "it's hard to balance traits that hit everything" does not really seem to be something that was on their minds, right? Alatoic's trait is absolutely nuts on things like flyers and Shadow Spectres -- they have the one trait that everyone knew going in was really, really dangerous if applied to everything. Meanwhile Biel-Tan can't even get re-roll 1s for Swooping Hawks, and Iyanden ends up with something that's almost strictly worse than Ulthwe's.
I don't think any of the Craftworlds have been left behind. But then again, I am an AdMech player, and only two of our seven Forge Worlds have any use whatsoever.
I meant that it is hard to make powerful traits that broadly apply to multiple model types while remaining balanced. -1 to hit at 12" does seem to be the strongest generic though. I definitely enjoy the AdMech version, which is paired with an Infiltrate stratagem.
Actually, I think Iyanden's is better than Ulthwe's in some circumstances.
Sure. For a tank army, Iyanden is rather good.
Ulthwe adds a bit more to both aspects and wraith units (because the models are more valuable)
So you'd expect me to use Biel-Tan's trait in an all Aspect army that has no Shuriken Weapons (other than a few pistols) and The Avatar making the +1 Ld worthless? No thanks.
Uh yeah. Where'd you get the idea that Biel-Tan Aspect Warriors eschew Shuriken weapons?
If you take fire dragons, dark reapers, spiders or swooping hawks, being Biel tan is completely meaningless. What the trait is actually good for is spamming guardians- exactly the opposite of what they're supposed to do.
Uh yeah. Where'd you get the idea that Biel-Tan Aspect Warriors eschew Shuriken weapons?
Well apart from dire avengers no aspect gets notable boost from that. So if you take biel tan trait better spam dire avengers. Or better yet jet bikes.
Some of the stuff revealed is really good, I think my 10 man Ranger unit is back in to my list now. No indication that the Fire Prism has had a points reduction though which is very disappointing, I suspect I'm just spoilt with how amazing the Ravager is but even shooting twice (and without external buffs) the Fire Prism is more expensive and less effective than the Dark Kins alternative, and that comes with a 5++ stock. Falcon still looks overpriced, even at 146pts.
Spartacus wrote: So wait - ALL Eldar units benefit from these traits?
Is my 4th Edition Grav Tank Parking lot list back in business?
Can someone confirm this before I die of anticipation
Confirmed, ALL units (not just infantry). Grav Tank spam is definitely viable, I am guessing the Alaitoc trait would suit you best but a case could be made for both Ulthwe and Iyanden.
Dionysodorus wrote: webway assault: 1-3 CP to infiltrate
cloud strike: 1 CP vehicle deep strike
Quicken/Restrain: friendly unit within 18" moves again
Protect: +1 armor save (infantry/bikes only probably)
Fate: guide, doom, fortune, executioner (mws), something that gives fearless, mind war
Ynnari can't use "rules"
Attributes apply to everything including flyers
Reapers: 81 points for 3. launcher was 31 now 22
Shining Spears: down 6 to 18
Avengers: 12 points
banshees: no overwatch, advance and charge, +3" charge, can choose things 15" away to charge
Jain Zar: banshees fight first
war walkers: outflank
warp spiders: deep strike
hawks: assault 4, 13 points
scorpions: cheaper
wraithknight: no real changes
hemlock: now -2 Ld aura and cheaper
nightspinners: cheaper
falcon: 50 points cheaper
storm guardians: unchanged
windriders: 18 points w/ catapults, 28 w/ cannon (possibly didn't realize that catapults cost points)
scatter lasers: 15 points
wl traits:
mark of hunter: warlord can snipe characters
+2 move to wl alatoic puritanical leader: 6" fearless aura
Ulthwe: command point at start of turn on a 6
Remnants:
Phoenix Gem: when slain, on a 2+ do d3 mortal wounds, if kill something then bearer comes back with 1 wound
Underwheelming Ynnari (without stratagems, warlord traits or relics) for a year while other factions get all the shiny toys!
Useless Wraithknight not going down in points (nor changed to be more powerful)?
Yeeeeah! They messed the two only things I was looking forward to in this released
Kanluwen wrote:Interestingly, the Bonesinger is said to be including a booklet with rules to allow it to be fielded in 40k.
Chief wrote:Awesome the Bonesinger gets a datasheet with him!
Whoa whoa whoa, steady now. There is only so much arousal my trousers can withstand.
Though it might just be a datasheet that gives warlock, farseer and spiritseer statlines, and says you can choose one of the above.
However... it might be a repair character, something Eldar don't have any of (and I think are unique in not having any repairer characters). Fluffy too. I was already going to buy a couple, but now I am even more excited for it!
Edit:
Does seem very odd that they have now made Ynnari a bad choice. Even if you mix your lists, you can still legally take Harlequins (for example) with your Craftworld Eldar, in a separate detachment. You're probably better off with say, -1 to hit from Alaitoc for your Craftworld detachment, and keeping Battle Focus and Rising Crescendo as your other traits for craftworld and harlequins respectively.
Soulburst and Strength from Death no longer seem powerful enough to compete. At least until Ynnari get their own codex (which is HIGHLY unlikely).
Dionysodorus wrote: webway assault: 1-3 CP to infiltrate
cloud strike: 1 CP vehicle deep strike
Quicken/Restrain: friendly unit within 18" moves again
Protect: +1 armor save (infantry/bikes only probably)
Fate: guide, doom, fortune, executioner (mws), something that gives fearless, mind war
Ynnari can't use "rules"
Attributes apply to everything including flyers
Reapers: 81 points for 3. launcher was 31 now 22
Shining Spears: down 6 to 18
Avengers: 12 points
banshees: no overwatch, advance and charge, +3" charge, can choose things 15" away to charge
Jain Zar: banshees fight first
war walkers: outflank
warp spiders: deep strike
hawks: assault 4, 13 points
scorpions: cheaper
wraithknight: no real changes
hemlock: now -2 Ld aura and cheaper
nightspinners: cheaper
falcon: 50 points cheaper
storm guardians: unchanged
windriders: 18 points w/ catapults, 28 w/ cannon (possibly didn't realize that catapults cost points)
scatter lasers: 15 points
wl traits:
mark of hunter: warlord can snipe characters
+2 move to wl alatoic puritanical leader: 6" fearless aura
Ulthwe: command point at start of turn on a 6
Remnants:
Phoenix Gem: when slain, on a 2+ do d3 mortal wounds, if kill something then bearer comes back with 1 wound
Underwheelming Ynnari (without stratagems, warlord traits or relics) for a year while other factions get all the shiny toys!
Useless Wraithknight not going down in points (nor changed to be more powerful)?
Yeeeeah! They messed the two only things I was looking forward to in this released
Ynnari are not underwhelmed, they already was a decent contender, add the points reduction and units upgrades along with some new abilities (Fire prism double shoot, banshee mask changes) and they still got a buff.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would like the Alaitoc color scheme better if the helmets were white instead of yellow (basically you end up with an entire army of Dire Avengers!).
Underwheelming Ynnari (without stratagems, warlord traits or relics) for a year while other factions get all the shiny toys!
I dunno, you can play Craftworld traits and just put an Ynnari Warlord in a separate Patrol detachment. They may not get the trait but the rest of your army does and you still get to replace the rather lacklustre Battle Focus with Strength From Death!
I think they have done a good job of making Craftworlds good again, for a while, Ynnari was all anyone was playing. Now both are viable.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would like the Alaitoc color scheme better if the helmets were white instead of yellow (basically you end up with an entire army of Dire Avengers!).
Dionysodorus wrote: webway assault: 1-3 CP to infiltrate
cloud strike: 1 CP vehicle deep strike
Quicken/Restrain: friendly unit within 18" moves again
Protect: +1 armor save (infantry/bikes only probably)
Fate: guide, doom, fortune, executioner (mws), something that gives fearless, mind war
Ynnari can't use "rules"
Attributes apply to everything including flyers
Reapers: 81 points for 3. launcher was 31 now 22
Shining Spears: down 6 to 18
Avengers: 12 points
banshees: no overwatch, advance and charge, +3" charge, can choose things 15" away to charge
Jain Zar: banshees fight first
war walkers: outflank
warp spiders: deep strike
hawks: assault 4, 13 points
scorpions: cheaper
wraithknight: no real changes
hemlock: now -2 Ld aura and cheaper
nightspinners: cheaper
falcon: 50 points cheaper
storm guardians: unchanged
windriders: 18 points w/ catapults, 28 w/ cannon (possibly didn't realize that catapults cost points)
scatter lasers: 15 points
wl traits:
mark of hunter: warlord can snipe characters
+2 move to wl alatoic puritanical leader: 6" fearless aura
Ulthwe: command point at start of turn on a 6
Remnants:
Phoenix Gem: when slain, on a 2+ do d3 mortal wounds, if kill something then bearer comes back with 1 wound
Underwheelming Ynnari (without stratagems, warlord traits or relics) for a year while other factions get all the shiny toys!
Useless Wraithknight not going down in points (nor changed to be more powerful)?
Yeeeeah! They messed the two only things I was looking forward to in this released
Ynnari are not underwhelmed, they already was a decent contender, add the points reduction and units upgrades along with some new abilities (Fire prism double shoot, banshee mask changes) and they still got a buff.
Ynnari are still probably the best bet for Wraithguard. Perfectly reasonable to run them with yvraine and a spirit seer in their own detachment. And given that they were previously quite good, and have only gotten better, you'll probably do just fine with them.
Notice that the codex mention it has 46 datasheets. There's 47 in the index by my count. I'm guessing the Autarch with warp jump generator will be scrapped?
Redemption wrote: Notice that the codex mention it has 46 datasheets. There's 47 in the index by my count. I'm guessing the Autarch with warp jump generator will be scrapped?
Or they could had merged some entries like Crimson hunters or Nightspinner and Fireprism, wich is just same tank with different main gun and some other options. Guess will need to wait and see.
Cream Tea wrote: I did not expect the Bonesinger to get rules. That is so nice.
If it's something as basic as Wraith units within 6" can regain 1 wound on a roll per phase or *revive* a fallen construct i wil be very pleased with it.
Me I want the Codex, BoneSinger and that starter box set.
Codex on the ipad.
While we wait is there anyone in here that knows or can point me to a list of Eldar books/Novels.
Finishing up my first WH40K novel, the Sisters of Battle omnibus and would like to start the Eldar ones.
Just cant seem to find a list of them and in what order they should be read.
Rerolling 1's increases damage output by about 1/6 (on a unit that can quite easily get an 83% or 97% chance to hit), I really don't get why people think this is bad.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would like the Alaitoc color scheme better if the helmets were white instead of yellow (basically you end up with an entire army of Dire Avengers!).
If only there were variant color schemes...
On it! I accidentally got a box of the snapfit Guardians, gonna paint them up that way. I love Dire Avengers(my favorite aspect by far), having an entire army composed of them effectively would be awesome. If I build onto the army more (the new Start Collecting looks awesome!), I might do just that.
Chief wrote:Awesome the Bonesinger gets a datasheet with him!
Whoa whoa whoa, steady now. There is only so much arousal my trousers can withstand.
Though it might just be a datasheet that gives warlock, farseer and spiritseer statlines, and says you can choose one of the above.
The Bonesinger description says he is equipped with a psytronome shaper, and as far as I know that sounds like a unique item.
...Why does Psytronome sound familiar? Didn't one of the recent stratagems mention that?
Either way, it sounds promising that he will be a repair guy. Wraithlords are looking even more interesting. I might get a second.
Edit:
It was the Iyanden wargear option that was previewed back when they announced the Eldar codex was coming soon. Psytronome of Iyanden: Iyanden Psyker Only. Once Per Game. All Wraith Constructs within 6″ of Psyker double their attack characteristic. After the fight phase each Construct unit suffers D3 Mortal Wounds.
So yeh, Psytronome Shaper would be something Wraith-ey, that shapes... I am pretty much gonna put my bets on a healstick.
From the videos, stuff that I've heard people ask before -
Phoenix Lords : They have a rule that means they don't break detachment battleforged status. From the sound of it, that applies to all the special characters.
Thirty units have points changes, and every one of them is a reduction.
19 Weapons have points changes, 17 of them reductions.
- Shadow Weaver increased by 4 points.
- Vibro Cannon increased by 10 points.
Wraith Knight is the same cost, but the Titanic Ghost Glaive is reduced by 35 points.
(Points costs are done as + or - compared to index)
Crimson Hunters -23 (Exarch -48 points)
Falcon -49 points
War Walkers -11
Vypers -14
Vauls Support Battery -47 points (needed)
Eldrad -30
Farseer Skyrunner -29 points (interesting) (Also Singing Spears down to 4 points, from 12. So -8)
Spiritseer -22
No mention of warlocks, or warlock skyrunners, or conclaves... if they are the same points now then they are garbage. Spiritseers and Farseers all day every day.
Various of the special characters down between 10 and 20 points.
Star Cannon now 15 points (er, seems good?)
Twin Scatter Laser -13
Twin Shuriken Cannon -7
Twin Star Cannon -32
Ghost Axes -4, Force Shields -2
Stratagems - Webway Strike is Infantry and Bikers only.
- The Move-Shoot-Move Stratagem works for any unit, and it can charge afterwards. So Move-Shoot-Move-Charge.
- Seer Council - If you have a Farseer and a Warlock within 6" of each other, you can add 1 to any Psychic tests. 1CP.
- Serpent Shield - You can immediatley discharge your serpent shield again, so twice in one turn if you did it normally first. 1CP. Seems you can do it every turn on the same wave serpent?
- Feigned Retreat - 2CP. Any infantry or Fly unit in combat. Can fall back, then shoot and charge.
- Tears of Aisha - 2CP. Any wraith construct unit. Immediately regains D3 wounds
- Phantasm - 2CP. After deployment, but before the first turn starts. You can immediately re-deploy 3 units. Odd one, but can mean you can fake out your opponent with false flanking moves.
Warlord Traits He lists the generic warlord traits, but nothing we hadn't seen before. Other than Sniper, which is interesting.
Alaitoc - Nearby Alaitoc units pass morale tests
Bieltan - Unit within 3", can reroll all failed hit rolls when shooting in that phase.
Iyanden - Warlord gets +1 deny the witch, even if they're not a psyker.
Samhain - +3" pile in moves in any direction. +1 attack if they pile in to nearest model.
Ulthwe - At the start of every turn (yours and opponents) roll a D6. On a 6 you gain 1 command point. (Probably the best craftworld-specific warlord trait).
Unique Wargear:
- Phoenix Gem - If this model is slain, roll a D6 for each unit (friend and foe) within 6". For any result of 2+, that unit suffers D3 mortal wounds. If any wounds are inflicted, this model is not killed.
There was a wargear option that gives an infantry model a move stat of 12" and the fly keyword.
- Biel-Tan wargear option that lets the bearer reroll any failed psychic test.
- Shift-Shroud - Alaitoc. Enemy units get -1 to hit in the shooting phase (if this stacks with everything else, you could easily get a warlord with like -3 to hit?) Also lets you infiltrate this model, but proper infiltrate so you can pop-out of hiding during any turn you choose.
- There's an Autarch only relic, which says all enemy attacks against him are -1 to hit.
Datasheet changes:
- D-Scythes, you roll for each model, not one roll for the whole squad.
- Warp Spiders - If they fall back out of combat using their generator, they can now shoot. And they now have deepstrike.
If you roll 1-1 you lose a model.
- War Walkers - Scout changed to a reserves. Can set up on an enemy's flank, and appear in any turn.
- Wraithlord - T8. +1 attacks too.
- Wraithfighter - It got a points drop, so it got nerfed, right? Well, the D-Cannons it has went from S10 to S12. For some reason.
- Wraithknight - Same, but cheaper Glaive. Heavy wraith cannon went from S10 to S16...
I think that's all I can be bothered to transcribe, I hope it helped people, or if not just ignore it haha.
I'm concerned that there seems to have been zero mention of warlocks or conclaves. Guess seer councils and warlock battle groups are dead. Long live the Spiritseer!
Wow, I'm gonna backtrack about this Codex being bad. Even if some of the craftworld traits feel uninspired and strange, I think this is gonna put Eldar again from the bottom of the barrel to a good spot.
Well, to be honest I never said this codex was, or I tought it was gonna be bad. I still believe that the Cratworld traits feel uninspired compared with the IG ones, but to be honest, every one feels underwhelming compared with the IG ones
Wow, I'm gonna backtrack about this Codex being bad. Even if some of the craftworld traits feel uninspired and strange, I think this is gonna put Eldar again from the bottom of the barrel to a good spot.
You're very welcome. Probably going to end up turning some spare web space I have into a decent Eldar tactica ground (like 1d4chan, except better formatting and actually updated properly), so I figured I should get into practise of filtering out useful information for people lol.
Those points reductions are just great though. Vauls Batteries might now be useful.
No idea why they buffed the Hemlock weapon to S12, I guess they have a lot of models to sell!
These changes are great, I just hope they're not too great.
It seems the Hemlock can lo longer manifest Conceal, according to winters SEO on Youtube it can now only cast the second version of the Runes of Battle powers. That's a good change, I like it. Apart from that... it got buffed. Which is weird.
Cream Tea wrote: These changes are great, I just hope they're not too great.
It seems the Hemlock can lo longer manifest Conceal, according to winters SEO on Youtube it can now only cast the second version of the Runes of Battle powers. That's a good change, I like it. Apart from that... it got buffed. Which is weird.
I thought he said it was only for that particular power.. if it's for all the powers, then losing conceal is a pretty big nerf as it was a huge advantage having the big -1 to hit bubble. That probably makes sense now. I was fielding a Hemlock instead of any warlocks, because it's good and warlocks are garbage. I'd say that makes sense as to why it got the points reduction, though I don't think it -also- needed the strength buff on it's weapons.
Wraithknight strength buff is interesting though. Still probably not enough to matter, but at least they tried. S16 is kinda nuts.
First time I've ordered something from Made to Order. Picked up this little fella'. Only Ranger I don't have.
Kanluwen wrote: Interestingly, the Bonesinger is said to be including a booklet with rules to allow it to be fielded in 40k.
And it would've killed them to put that out as a free PDF? I know there aren't all that many people who already own a Bonesinger, and GW actively wants to dissuade people from making their own, but what do they actually lose by putting up a PDF for Bonesinger rules?
Cream Tea wrote: These changes are great, I just hope they're not too great.
It seems the Hemlock can lo longer manifest Conceal, according to winters SEO on Youtube it can now only cast the second version of the Runes of Battle powers. That's a good change, I like it. Apart from that... it got buffed. Which is weird.
I thought he said it was only for that particular power.. if it's for all the powers, then losing conceal is a pretty big nerf as it was a huge advantage having the big -1 to hit bubble. That probably makes sense now. I was fielding a Hemlock instead of any warlocks, because it's good and warlocks are garbage. I'd say that makes sense as to why it got the points reduction, though I don't think it -also- needed the strength buff on it's weapons.
Wraithknight strength buff is interesting though. Still probably not enough to matter, but at least they tried. S16 is kinda nuts.
The way he put it wasn't entirely clear, since he specifically mentioned Embolden/Horrify at first, but then he said the Hemlock could only manifest the second versions of these spells, or something to that effect. My guess is Embolden/Horrify happens to be the example used in the book to clarify how the limitation works, and that's why he mentioned that specifically.
Anyway, I hope that's the case because I don't want Hemlocks to be too silly. And yes, I do own one and play it. I always liked it, even when it wasn't good.
Niiru wrote: From the videos, stuff that I've heard people ask before -
Phoenix Lords : They have a rule that means they don't break detachment battleforged status. From the sound of it, that applies to all the special characters.
Thirty units have points changes, and every one of them is a reduction.
Thanks for the summary. Hope Dark Eldar get the same treatment, but based on history, I doubt it.
It sounds like I made a good call picking up the current Start Collecting Eldar box. I kind of wish I had gotten a second for another Fire Prism. They're probably going to be hard to find now...
SEO seems to be off on a few things but they can be easy to miss. Such as, the Move-shoot-move Stratagem specifies no charging afterward if it is the same as posted on the website. Similarly, the Psytronome relic won't hurt every model in a wraithblade unit, just D3 mw.
I really would like some point questions cleared up, but that can wait a week.
I guess the main things I'm curious about at this point are:
Is Webway Assault deep strike or infiltrate?
How much are twin shuriken catapults?
Being able to deep strike things like Guardians at will would be a huge deal. Infiltrate would be much less relevant since it's gambling everything on getting first turn but gives you much easier charges -- the only thing you really want to use it on is Wraithblades.
The price of twin catapults just matters enormously for a whole bunch of units, like everything on a jetbike or long-range Prisms. They've almost certainly changed -- apparently shuriken cannons are now 10 points so twin catapults have got to have dropped.
It's interesting that the twin heavy weapons have gotten bigger price cuts than you'd expect from the changes to the single weapons. They now cost less than double instead of double. This is a small additional Serpent buff; what else even gets twin heavy weapons?
Well, that's my take on the changes (it's quite a narrow point of view as it affects the units I own or planned to own)
Niiru wrote: From the videos, stuff that I've heard people ask before -
Phoenix Lords : They have a rule that means they don't break detachment battleforged status. From the sound of it, that applies to all the special characters.
Nice. They could have done the same for the Triumvirate, though ¬¬
Wraith Knight is the same cost, but the Titanic Ghost Glaive is reduced by 35 points.
I'm not sure that was the buff the WK needed, but sure it will help to see this variant used more. Plus with the cheaper Stacannons you can still get some shooting as you stride towards the enemy
Dire Avengers -2 (Avenger Catapult -2)
This puts them back into the game. Now I have an option for good-looking Eldar troops besides Harlequin Troupes (Kabalites are nice but not my cup of tea)
Scorpions -4 (Claw -8)
Yeah! This plus the charge-buffing abilities make them worth it. Plus, Scorpion Claw at the same cost as the Biting Blade? Say hello to the way cooler weapon, BB
Ghost Axes -4, Force Shields -2
It's always nice to buff the least used variant, now they are really attractive
Stratagems - The Move-Shoot-Move Stratagem works for any unit, and it can charge afterwards. So Move-Shoot-Move-Charge.
- Feigned Retreat - 2CP. Any infantry or Fly unit in combat. Can fall back, then shoot and charge.
- Tears of Aisha - 2CP. Any wraith construct unit. Immediately regains D3 wounds
- Phantasm - 2CP. After deployment, but before the first turn starts. You can immediately re-deploy 3 units. Odd one, but can mean you can fake out your opponent with false flanking moves.
All of those are really cool and make for a more interesting and fun CWE playstyle
Warlord Traits He lists the generic warlord traits, but nothing we hadn't seen before. Other than Sniper, which is interesting.
Alaitoc - Nearby Alaitoc units pass morale tests
Bieltan - Unit within 3", can reroll all failed hit rolls when shooting in that phase.
Iyanden - Warlord gets +1 deny the witch, even if they're not a psyker.
Samhain - +3" pile in moves in any direction. +1 attack if they pile in to nearest model.
Ulthwe - At the start of every turn (yours and opponents) roll a D6. On a 6 you gain 1 command point. (Probably the best craftworld-specific warlord trait).
A shame Ynnari requires the Warlord to be one of the Triumvirate, so no shiny WT for me. But it seems fair
Datasheet changes:
- Wraithlord - T8. +1 attacks too.
Need for a Ghost Warriors army intensifies...
- Wraithknight - Same, but cheaper Glaive. Heavy wraith cannon went from S10 to S16...
Again, it needed a lot more. A HWC Wraithknight will still be way overpriced, but those guns will deliver quite a punch. No longer glorified lascannons, for sure!
Well, my pessimism is fading (to a degree). I can field a detachment with Yvraine, the Yncarne and my Harlequin and Drukkhari units (which won't get cool tricks for a while, apparently), another of pure CWE, and benefit from the Stratagems and Craftworld traits were it matters. Only downside is not having non-generic warlord traits nor relics, but it's not the end of the world.
Cool, finally get my hands on a bonesinger. Stupidly didn't pick one up first time around because they didn't have rules. It's interesting that they're including rules now. If they're more fleshed out than just a warlock with some funny gear then I wouldn't be surprised if they get included in the next codex.
Shandara wrote: Nice to see all aspects becoming cheaper, I can finally use my 3 squads of Banshees again! (since like 3rd edition)
You always could!
Anyway, nice to see the Eldar getting a codex. I'll prpbably get one at some point. I have Biel Tan and took shuriken cannons over scatter lasers as it seemed to fit them more, the more traditional weapons in guardians with more squads of aspects peppered about. I havent played 8th yet so I dont know what the dfeal is with Warlocks, why are they so bad?
Shandara wrote: Nice to see all aspects becoming cheaper, I can finally use my 3 squads of Banshees again! (since like 3rd edition)
You always could!
Anyway, nice to see the Eldar getting a codex. I'll prpbably get one at some point. I have Biel Tan and took shuriken cannons over scatter lasers as it seemed to fit them more, the more traditional weapons in guardians with more squads of aspects peppered about. I havent played 8th yet so I dont know what the dfeal is with Warlocks, why are they so bad?
Index Warlocks are a lot like Imperial Guard Astropaths which cost 15 points, except worse and they cost 35 points. They might as well not have the generic offensive psychic power Smite, because their version of it is nerfed even more than the Grey Knights' one. They only have 2 wounds so if they ever Perils they are likely to blow up and take a lot of your other stuff with them. Meanwhile, new Spiritseers cost 10 points more for full-powered Smite and twice as many wounds.
Now we know that Autarch with Power Weapon and Farseer with Singing Spear are resin, it says in the description are they.
In case anybody is like me and prefer metal miniatures.
Oh that's quite nice. That's a significant improvement to their damage output on the turn they arrive as long as you can hit something other than GEQs.
Redemption wrote: Also noticed some of the wargear options of the various Aspect Warrior Exarchs are removed now: the spinneret rifle, sunrifle, triskele & chainsabres.
Pity, if the Sunrifle was updated to last until the end of the next shooting phase it would be pretty awesome.
Quick question about the digital version of the books for anyone who has them. When FAQ's are released are these future updates reflected in the digital version?
Wait, they removed chainsabres? Damnit I converted my scorpion exarch to have those! So now I am out of an extra scorpion and my weapon choice is invalidated.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Wait, they removed chainsabres? Damnit I converted my scorpion exarch to have those! So now I am out of an extra scorpion and my weapon choice is invalidated.
It is an ancient and venerable pair of blades fashioned to suit the unique fighting style of your Exarch. In terms of rules and costs, they count as a Biting Blade.
It sounds like he's going to go over all of the stratagems and warlord traits in detail. So far:
1 CP Matchless Agility: Asuryani advance 6" instead of d6"
1 CP Cloud Strike: Fly Vehicle deep strikes, including transports, can't use if used Webway Strike (not clear if you can disembark immediately)
1 or 3 CP Webway Strike: 1 or 2 Asuryani infantry or bikers deep strike, can't use if used Cloud Strike and can only use once
As the rules stand you would not be able to disembark from a deepstriking vehicle.
Deepstriking units arrive at the end of the Movement phase, and a unit which disembarks must do so before the vehicle moves (which I assume includes falling from the sky). That being said, Wave Serpents should be tough enough to survive a turn of fire if placed correctly.
It would have been nice if the buffed Wraithlords could come out of a webway portal. That was how I relied on getting Talos' across the table in the old rules.
Do we know if phoenix lords got a buff? An extra attack or anything? I see they went down 10-20 points per model but they still seem lame to me if they didn't get a corresponding power increase of some type. Especially if they can't use craftworld traits.
So it's interesting that it says "units" with the <Craftworld> keyword and says nothing about whole detachments. Does that mean you can take a single Battalion and mix-n-match Attributes? I'm sure I am missing something. *goes to fetch main rulebook*
So it's interesting that it says "units" with the <Craftworld> keyword and says nothing about whole detachments.
Does that mean you can take a single Battalion and mix-n-match Attributes? I'm sure I am missing something.
*goes to fetch main rulebook*
-
This is the army list section, like p130 of the Marine codex. It has nothing to do with Attributes. The section with rules for detachments will come later (p194 of the Marine codex).
So it's interesting that it says "units" with the <Craftworld> keyword and says nothing about whole detachments. Does that mean you can take a single Battalion and mix-n-match Attributes? I'm sure I am missing something. *goes to fetch main rulebook*
-
This is the army list section, like p130 of the Marine codex. It has nothing to do with Attributes. The section with rules for detachments will come later (p194 of the Marine codex).
I see. So it probably is possible to mix-n-match Attributes in a given detachment, but in order to use specific stratagems, you need to have a whole detachment dedicated to the matching Attribute?
So it's interesting that it says "units" with the <Craftworld> keyword and says nothing about whole detachments.
Does that mean you can take a single Battalion and mix-n-match Attributes? I'm sure I am missing something.
*goes to fetch main rulebook*
-
This is the army list section, like p130 of the Marine codex. It has nothing to do with Attributes. The section with rules for detachments will come later (p194 of the Marine codex).
I see. So it probably is possible to mix-n-match Attributes in a given detachment, but in order to use specific stratagems, you need to have a whole detachment dedicated to the matching Attribute?
-
No I expect that the later section will be formatted just like the other codices and say that you only get Attributes for a detachment if they're all from the same <Craftworld>, barring Phoenix Lords.
Automatically Appended Next Post: New stuff I picked up from the miniwargaming review:
Stratagems:
1 CP Matchless Agility: Asuryani advance 6" instead of d6"
1 CP Celestial Shield: Guardian gets 4++ for shooting phase
1 CP Cloud Strike: Fly Vehicle deep strikes, including transports, can't use if used Webway Strike (not clear if you can disembark immediately)
1 or 3 CP Webway Strike: 1 or 2 Asuryani infantry or bikers deep strike, can't use if used Cloud Strike
1 or 3 CP Treasures of the Craftworld: extra relics
2 CP Forewarned: unit within 6" of Farseer can shoot at deep striker as if your shooting phase
1 CP Great Enemy: friendly Asuryani unit re-rolls failed fight wounds vs Slaanesh
1 CP Concordance of Power: Warlock Conclave doubles range of a successfully manifested power
1 CP Unparalleled Mastery: when Farseer successfully manifests last power, can attempt another power
2 CP Feigned Retreat: Asuryani shoots and charges after falling back
1 CP Linked Fire: Prisms link
2 CP Lightning Fast Reactions: Asuryani Infantry or Fly unit targeted in Shooting or Fight phase is at -1 to hit for phase
1 CP Supreme Disdain: Asuryani fights in fight phase, hit rolls of 6+ give you an extra attack
1 CP Overloaded Energy Field Projectors: Serpent that already discharged its shield can do so again
1 CP Starclock(?) Missiles: when Asuryani Infantry attacks a Fly with an AML, single hit roll, +1 to hit, d3 mortal wounds
Seer Council: if Farseer is within 6" of Warlock, +1 to all psychic tests for both for that phase
1 CP Fire and Fade: Asuryani moves 7" after shooting, can't charge
2 CP Runes of Witnessing: re-roll wounds of 1 for all units within 6" of a specific Farseer for a phase
2 CP Phantasm: redeploy up to 3 Asuryani units, including transports
2 CP Tears of Isha: Wraith Construct heals d3
Vaul's Might: if two support weapons within 6" of each other, re-roll wounds of 1 for both
3 CP Avatar Resurgent: avatar resurrection
Saim-Hann: biker can advance and charge, re-roll hits of 1 in fight phase
traits:
Ambush of Blades: 6" aura - hit roll of 6 in fight phase has AP improved by 1
Eye on Distant Events: no Overwatch on warlord
Falcon's Swiftness: +2" movement on warlord
Fate's Messenger: +1 W and 6+ FNP Mark of the Incomparable Hunter: warlord can snipe
Seer of Shifting Vector: once per battle re-roll single roll
Ulthwe: roll d6 at start of each player's turn, get a CP on a 6
Iyanden: warlord can deny one additional power
Saim-Hann: warlord can heroically intervene towards characters rather than models, gets +1A vs characters
Biel-Tan: a unit within 3" of warlord re-rolls failed hits in shooting phase
Alatoic: 6" fearless aura
Remnants:
pistol
phoenix gem: do mortal wounds to nearby things to resurrect
give 12" move and fly
S+1 AP-4 sword, MWs on 6 to wound
-1 to hit on Autarch
Ulthwe: +1 to psychic test for Smite
Saim-Hann: laser lance
Biel-Tan: sword
Battle:
Conceal and Embolden now target single units within 18"
Fate:
Executioner: WC7 Smite, but if a model dies the target unit takes another d3
Will of Asuryan: WC5, 6" fearless, +1 to DTW for psyker
Oh, thanks Dionysodorus. I haven't seen any of the other codices in person, so I didn't know that was specified in them.
And thanx for the summary too.
Redemption wrote: Also noticed some of the wargear options of the various Aspect Warrior Exarchs are removed now: the spinneret rifle, sunrifle, triskele & chainsabres.
Are any of those upgrades represented by currently available miniatures?
I didn't say I was surprised. Although there are still plenty of Exarch wargear options that don't have models either afaik, so why those specific options were cut but others weren't is anyone's guess.
Hemlocks are 11 points cheaper
twin shuriken catapults are 5 points
So Windriders are at minimum 23 points, which seems a bit high still compared to something like Scout Bikers, but then Shining Spears are I think 32, which seems great.
Galas wrote: Well, to be honest I never said this codex was, or I tought it was gonna be bad. I still believe that the Cratworld traits feel uninspired compared with the IG ones, but to be honest, every one feels underwhelming compared with the IG ones
Not trying to put you on the spot before or now, but no the IG traits are not that amazing. This keeps being parroted like it is settled. As with every book, like 2-3 traits are useful while the others are bland and uninventive. I mean, we got a repeat assault weapon trait, additional rapid fire range and max range benefit and one that helps on overwatch. Then there is the funny catachan one that makes your guardsmen stronger (because thats real useful) and the Cadian one that promotes not moving ever.
The eldar traits are on par for 8th edition and as with every other book including the Guard one btw, the majority pissed and moaned until the rest of the leaks came out when they ate humble pie. I am hoping against the odds that the same thing doesn't happen with the Tyranid release but I won't holds my breath.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oaka wrote: It would have been nice if the buffed Wraithlords could come out of a webway portal. That was how I relied on getting Talos' across the table in the old rules.
Who needs one, you move 8" then you move another 8" in the psychic phase, then you shoot and move 7" with a 1cp stratagem then you assault 2d6 (with a reroll if your Saim Han) pretty sure you can easily get your wraithlord there turn 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK so this is a lot of CP's but you can move banshees 8" +6" with a CP then in the psychic phase move 8" +6" with another CP and then shoot and move another 7" and finally charge 2d6+3" with a rerool as Saim Han. Thats pretty incredible. Not sure I can get behind some of the frankly comical levels of speed for foot sloggers this book creates.
xmbk wrote: Good stuff. But the fact the Ulthwe doesn't stack and Alaitoc does tells me that GW still isn't using rules experts to check final copy.
In the Twitch stream, they actually had strategies, shout outs and background info from Nova Open founder Mike Brandt, Reece from Frontline Gaming and a few others they call the "Mournival Playtest group". Gave examples of recommendations these guys made, strategies these people think will be very powerful, etc.. All, not least, because those people were in the know of the Codex in ways the GW-employed Warhammer Community guys aren't.
Galas wrote: Well, to be honest I never said this codex was, or I tought it was gonna be bad. I still believe that the Cratworld traits feel uninspired compared with the IG ones, but to be honest, every one feels underwhelming compared with the IG ones
Not trying to put you on the spot before or now, but no the IG traits are not that amazing. This keeps being parroted like it is settled. As with every book, like 2-3 traits are useful while the others are bland and uninventive. I mean, we got a repeat assault weapon trait, additional rapid fire range and max range benefit and one that helps on overwatch. Then there is the funny catachan one that makes your guardsmen stronger (because thats real useful) and the Cadian one that promotes not moving ever.
The eldar traits are on par for 8th edition and as with every other book including the Guard one btw, the majority pissed and moaned until the rest of the leaks came out when they ate humble pie. I am hoping against the odds that the same thing doesn't happen with the Tyranid release but I won't holds my breath.
I like how you have to completely misrepresent the Catachan trait to make your argument seem valid
OK so this is a lot of CP's but you can move banshees 8" +6" with a CP then in the psychic phase move 8" +6" with another CP and then shoot and move another 7" and finally charge 2d6+3" with a rerool as Saim Han. Thats pretty incredible. Not sure I can get behind some of the frankly comical levels of speed for foot sloggers this book creates.
Eldar are meant to be incredibly fast. They are fast, and fragile. That's their thing. So they should be the fastest, even without using any CP.
Unfortunately IG are still stupidly fast, and they can do it for free.
Conscripts (or any other infantry unit) can move 6" + D6" + 6" + D6"... so up to 24 inches in a turn, for free. They can't shoot or charge though, but for getting into position or blocking an incoming charge its great. And costs no CP. So an entire infantry army can move 14-24 inches on turn 1. Would they want to? Maybe not. But they can.
Crusaders can move 6" + D6" + 6" + D6", and then charge 2D6, so a potential 36" charge range, again for zero CP.
Compared to this, your example with Banshees used 3CP, which is probably 30-50% of your total CP pool. I can't see it getting used very often. I'd much rather they could do it for free, like the Imperium units can, considering Eldar are meant to be faster.
Edit: Would in fact be cheaper to just deep strike the banshees in. More effective too, as you'd just need to make the charge. And you can use the CP's you saved on rerolling the charge roll if need be.
Galas wrote: Well, to be honest I never said this codex was, or I tought it was gonna be bad. I still believe that the Cratworld traits feel uninspired compared with the IG ones, but to be honest, every one feels underwhelming compared with the IG ones
Not trying to put you on the spot before or now, but no the IG traits are not that amazing. This keeps being parroted like it is settled. As with every book, like 2-3 traits are useful while the others are bland and uninventive. I mean, we got a repeat assault weapon trait, additional rapid fire range and max range benefit and one that helps on overwatch. Then there is the funny catachan one that makes your guardsmen stronger (because thats real useful) and the Cadian one that promotes not moving ever.
The eldar traits are on par for 8th edition and as with every other book including the Guard one btw, the majority pissed and moaned until the rest of the leaks came out when they ate humble pie. I am hoping against the odds that the same thing doesn't happen with the Tyranid release but I won't holds my breath.
I like how you have to completely misrepresent the Catachan trait to make your argument seem valid
How am I misrepresenting it? The infantry get +1 strength on a guardsmen.
You're misrepresenting it by deliberately leaving out half of the ability. Giving guardsmen more points efficient melee than orks is just the icing on the cake for that trait.
OK so this is a lot of CP's but you can move banshees 8" +6" with a CP then in the psychic phase move 8" +6" with another CP and then shoot and move another 7" and finally charge 2d6+3" with a rerool as Saim Han. Thats pretty incredible. Not sure I can get behind some of the frankly comical levels of speed for foot sloggers this book creates.
Eldar are meant to be incredibly fast. They are fast, and fragile. That's their thing. So they should be the fastest, even without using any CP.
Unfortunately IG are still stupidly fast, and they can do it for free.
Conscripts (or any other infantry unit) can move 6" + D6" + 6" + D6"... so up to 24 inches in a turn, for free. They can't shoot or charge though, but for getting into position or blocking an incoming charge its great. And costs no CP. So an entire infantry army can move 14-24 inches on turn 1. Would they want to? Maybe not. But they can.
Crusaders can move 6" + D6" + 6" + D6", and then charge 2D6, so a potential 36" charge range, again for zero CP.
Compared to this, your example with Banshees used 3CP, which is probably 30-50% of your total CP pool. I can't see it getting used very often. I'd much rather they could do it for free, like the Imperium units can, considering Eldar are meant to be faster.
Edit: Would in fact be cheaper to just deep strike the banshees in. More effective too, as you'd just need to make the charge. And you can use the CP's you saved on rerolling the charge roll if need be.
Hey look it took you literally one line to start griping about IG for some reason. BTW I play eldar so you can stop trying to explain to me what eldars thing is. It's cringy. They are plenty fast without stratagems. The fact that they got warptime with an 18" range on a model that costs 37 points (probably less now) is mind bendingly good. Especially when you can drop anything you want in the book outside 9" of enemies anywhere on the table. Hey look, 10 wraith(any variety) pop up and can move point blank from a power cast beyond denial range! BTW thats 1cp. But hey, keep moaning on about how you somehow need to burn all the CO's to do something. My example was not meant to demonstrate CP efficiency or a must do combo, it was showing how ludicrously fast anything in this book can be. Even on foot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arachnofiend wrote: You're misinterpreting it by deliberately leaving out half of the ability. Giving guardsmen more points efficient melee than orks is just the icing on the cake for that trait.
Thats not misrepresenting a thing there buddy. I was briefly running down traits, the funny thing is even the reroll random shots ability is not that amazing. It simply makes them playable. Shooting a tank that hits on a 4+ before mods that has equal odds at rolling a 1 as it does a 6 is terrible.
Oh btw your claim that the trait makes guardsmen more efficient then orks in melee is not only entirely false but THAT is misleading. Even at 3ppm for consripts, 1 s4 attack thats hits on a 5+ is nowhere near as efficient per point then an ork boy in melee. Keep making up with your alternative facts though, its entertaining.
If I am misrepresenting then your blatantly exaggerating your own standards.
EDIT this part btw is asinine. You have no idea what anyones intent is.
nobody here is thinking that of course this thing of the traits is the new genaration gw policy to sell more among old gamers....
In the 7th were detachments, but they basically f*"ked up the entire game balance and the result was a bad game in general, forcing a lot of people leaving the game.
Now here we go, how can we force a biel tan player with 9000 pts of army already on the shelves to buy something more than the codex?!
here we go...he will struggle to have a fething brand new spearhead detachment of alaitoc to get that fething -1 to hit!!!!
jesus christ guys relax and have fun, stop barking among you...
btw i wiil leave my base black colour scheme and magnetize a part with a proper colour scheme and transfer... you won't have my money stupid gw
OK so this is a lot of CP's but you can move banshees 8" +6" with a CP then in the psychic phase move 8" +6" with another CP and then shoot and move another 7" and finally charge 2d6+3" with a rerool as Saim Han. Thats pretty incredible. Not sure I can get behind some of the frankly comical levels of speed for foot sloggers this book creates.
Eldar are meant to be incredibly fast. They are fast, and fragile. That's their thing. So they should be the fastest, even without using any CP.
Unfortunately IG are still stupidly fast, and they can do it for free.
Conscripts (or any other infantry unit) can move 6" + D6" + 6" + D6"... so up to 24 inches in a turn, for free. They can't shoot or charge though, but for getting into position or blocking an incoming charge its great. And costs no CP. So an entire infantry army can move 14-24 inches on turn 1. Would they want to? Maybe not. But they can.
Crusaders can move 6" + D6" + 6" + D6", and then charge 2D6, so a potential 36" charge range, again for zero CP.
Compared to this, your example with Banshees used 3CP, which is probably 30-50% of your total CP pool. I can't see it getting used very often. I'd much rather they could do it for free, like the Imperium units can, considering Eldar are meant to be faster.
Edit: Would in fact be cheaper to just deep strike the banshees in. More effective too, as you'd just need to make the charge. And you can use the CP's you saved on rerolling the charge roll if need be.
Hey look it took you literally one line to start griping about IG for some reason. BTW I play eldar so you can stop trying to explain to me what eldars thing is. It's cringy. They are plenty fast without stratagems. The fact that they got warptime with an 18" range on a model that costs 37 points (probably less now) is mind bendingly good. Especially when you can drop anything you want in the book outside 9" of enemies anywhere on the table. Hey look, 10 wraith(any variety) pop up and can move point blank from a power cast beyond denial range! BTW thats 1cp. But hey, keep moaning on about how you somehow need to burn all the CO's to do something. My example was not meant to demonstrate CP efficiency or a must do combo, it was showing how ludicrously fast anything in this book can be. Even on foot.
Well, the warlock would only be able to cast that warptime move if they're within 18", so they'd only be outside of deny range if the wraithguard deep strike inbetween the enemy and the warlock. So it's hardly guaranteed, depending on positioning. And if the warlock perils, the wraithguard get left out in the open and the warlock dies and does damage to anyone nearby.
So it's a pretty good stratagem, but it's no better than the IG relic that lets a character bring a squad of anything they like in on any turn via deepstrike. Deepstriking a squad of bullgryn, which with appropriate character support (also cheap) can get extra attacks and/or a 2++ invulnerable save. And this again is a relic, so costs zero CP.
I'm not "griping" about IG, I actually like the codex, but you're complaining that Eldar are now too fast, when they're only crazily faster than IG when burning a bunch of CP's to do so, and Eldar do not have many CP's to use. I'd say it works out pretty fairly, on paper. In practise, we won't know until it's tested. Banshees are fast, but way more fragile than a sprinting IG squad. I suspect they'll end up being a novelty unit, and not all that devastating on the table.
tirnaog wrote: Got the Bonesinger and the starter set!
USA pre-orders up!
Ordered Bonesinger, the Start Collecting box, and an Eldrad cos the new model looks cool.
Tempted by a couple jetbikes too, but might wait until the warlock skyrunner stats/prices shake out. I liked my old jetbike seer council though, and may just splurge on it even if it's not competitive. It's at least better now than it was in the index.
OK so this is a lot of CP's but you can move banshees 8" +6" with a CP then in the psychic phase move 8" +6" with another CP and then shoot and move another 7" and finally charge 2d6+3" with a rerool as Saim Han. Thats pretty incredible. Not sure I can get behind some of the frankly comical levels of speed for foot sloggers this book creates.
Eldar are meant to be incredibly fast. They are fast, and fragile. That's their thing. So they should be the fastest, even without using any CP.
Unfortunately IG are still stupidly fast, and they can do it for free.
Conscripts (or any other infantry unit) can move 6" + D6" + 6" + D6"... so up to 24 inches in a turn, for free. They can't shoot or charge though, but for getting into position or blocking an incoming charge its great. And costs no CP. So an entire infantry army can move 14-24 inches on turn 1. Would they want to? Maybe not. But they can.
Crusaders can move 6" + D6" + 6" + D6", and then charge 2D6, so a potential 36" charge range, again for zero CP.
Compared to this, your example with Banshees used 3CP, which is probably 30-50% of your total CP pool. I can't see it getting used very often. I'd much rather they could do it for free, like the Imperium units can, considering Eldar are meant to be faster.
Edit: Would in fact be cheaper to just deep strike the banshees in. More effective too, as you'd just need to make the charge. And you can use the CP's you saved on rerolling the charge roll if need be.
Hey look it took you literally one line to start griping about IG for some reason. BTW I play eldar so you can stop trying to explain to me what eldars thing is. It's cringy. They are plenty fast without stratagems. The fact that they got warptime with an 18" range on a model that costs 37 points (probably less now) is mind bendingly good. Especially when you can drop anything you want in the book outside 9" of enemies anywhere on the table. Hey look, 10 wraith(any variety) pop up and can move point blank from a power cast beyond denial range! BTW thats 1cp. But hey, keep moaning on about how you somehow need to burn all the CO's to do something. My example was not meant to demonstrate CP efficiency or a must do combo, it was showing how ludicrously fast anything in this book can be. Even on foot.
Well, the warlock would only be able to cast that warptime move if they're within 18", so they'd only be outside of deny range if the wraithguard deep strike inbetween the enemy and the warlock. So it's hardly guaranteed, depending on positioning. And if the warlock perils, the wraithguard get left out in the open and the warlock dies and does damage to anyone nearby.
So it's a pretty good stratagem, but it's no better than the IG relic that lets a character bring a squad of anything they like in on any turn via deepstrike. Deepstriking a squad of bullgryn, which with appropriate character support (also cheap) can get extra attacks and/or a 2++ invulnerable save. And this again is a relic, so costs zero CP.
I'm not "griping" about IG, I actually like the codex, but you're complaining that Eldar are now too fast, when they're only crazily faster than IG when burning a bunch of CP's to do so, and Eldar do not have many CP's to use. I'd say it works out pretty fairly, on paper. In practise, we won't know until it's tested. Banshees are fast, but way more fragile than a sprinting IG squad. I suspect they'll end up being a novelty unit, and not all that devastating on the table.
Look, I apologize for saying griping on the internet. I didn't mean for it to sound as it does when I reread it. I want you to be excited and positive for the book. There is a ton to be happy with in there. I have a feeling eldar are actually going to tear into the meta with much more of an impact then many are willing to bet. But we will see if I am correct or not.
The bold part highlights my argument btw. Not only is that an inaccurate statement with zero context, but completely derails the discussion again to complaints over IG. Banshees are faster (movement 8") can advance and charge, and add 3" to their charge which can be 15" away. They allow no overwatch, have more attacks, hit more often and have better kit from saves to weapons. Oh and higher leadership. APPLE meet ORANGES.
rollawaythestone wrote: Ordered a Bonesinger and I don't even play Eldar. That is one the coolest Eldar models around.
It is very strange that they're making rules for it.. if it does end up being an Eldar repair unit, it's odd that it's the only one available... and the model is only available for 1 week.
Perhaps they're planning on returning it for the long term, but have it in this 1 week made-to-order thing as a tester and a boost to sales, before they then go in a couple months "due to popularity, here's the Bonesinger!"
rollawaythestone wrote: Ordered a Bonesinger and I don't even play Eldar. That is one the coolest Eldar models around.
It is very strange that they're making rules for it.. if it does end up being an Eldar repair unit, it's odd that it's the only one available... and the model is only available for 1 week.
Perhaps they're planning on returning it for the long term, but have it in this 1 week made-to-order thing as a tester and a boost to sales, before they then go in a couple months "due to popularity, here's the Bonesinger!"
As its GW difficult to predict - they do odd things...They made a finecast(!) Canoness for sisters - were shocked by its popularity and begrudgingly made more when it sold out. Then did not bother to give her rules in the Index.
The easiest thing would be for them to just say you can use a warlock or Farseer as a Bonesinger.
They have their no models no rules - except for stuff that doesn't and does - Grandmaster babycarrier can only be made by converting.
The problem with IG isn't really their traits, it's their points. The ravenguard combination of trait and stratagem is still probably the best thing going, but isn't as mad as IG because the points for marines are are more or less ok.
So they are better than other marines (apart from Guilliman parking lots, because Guilliman) but not better than all other armies.
I have never even looked at the Wraithknight profile but Eldar have always been big (including titans) on dual wielded weapons, etc...or perhaps they're afraid they'd be too effective with one apiece, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jacob29 wrote: I thought they said they would be breaking up the Ynnari pack?
I never saw that they were breaking them up - they did state they would re-package with 8th edition rules included in the box. I think this is one of the boxes they may not bother splitting up because they're all one faction. It makes sense with the other box where you're splitting up models for various factions/armies...but if you're buying one Ynnari fancy model you probably need them all.
Looks like Autarchs lost all their wargear options. Regular Autarchs have a power fist equivalent (6 point star glaive), winged autarchs have a fusion pistol and power sword, and skyrunners have a power sword (can be replaced with laser lance or fusion gun).
Autarch Skyrunner can't have both a fusion gun and a laser lance anymore? I was quite liking that combination and was looking forward to try combining it with the Warlord Trait that allows you to shoot it at characters.
Redemption wrote: Autarch Skyrunner can't have both a fusion gun and a laser lance anymore? I was quite liking that combination and was looking forward to try combining it with the Warlord Trait that allows you to shoot it at characters.
Dionysodorus wrote: Looks like Autarchs lost all their wargear options. Regular Autarchs have a power fist equivalent (6 point star glaive), winged autarchs have a fusion pistol and power sword, and skyrunners have a power sword (can be replaced with laser lance or fusion gun).
Nooo, that's sad... Do you mean the winged autarch cannot take a fusion gun? What's the point of the trait kournos hunter than?.....please don't tell me the reaper launcher also
In that case, assuming the rules for detachments are the same as any other codex, surely we'd be able to stack ynnari rules on top of a craftworld detatchment? The yannri doesn't replace or remove the craftworld keyword, and as long as yvraine/visarch/yncarne is the warlord in a separate detachment to an all craftworld detachment (required to get the benefits) we should get both.
Obviously this assumes that there isn't a specific call out in the codex saying you can't get both
(Not really)
