Welcome ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, children of all ages.

This is the Codex: Eldar Craftwords Balance Errata, a part of the larger 40k Balance Errata. The goal of these Balance Errata is to create a more balanced and varied 40k and can be applied to their respective codex.

Also, to anyone looking at these Balance Errata the goal was to use the lightest hand as possible using points as the primary mechanism of change. Using weapon profile changes as well as Unit Composition more sparingly. Altering model stats even more sparingly, and lastly rewriting or adding new rules only when absolutely necessary.

Note that these changes are replacements unless notates as additions or removals.

Codex: Eldar Craftworlds


Change Log:


Codex: Dark Eldar


Change Log:


Ok, my Eldar Craftworlds Balance Errata is done, well at least the first draft. Let me know what you think, all feedback is valued and welcome. Let me have it!


5-21-15 Added the Dark Eldar. Definitely tried to make them more than codex Blaster/Venom Spam.

Do we really need three different threads for this stuff? People hated on me for my "Cheesy" threads yet you've done the same.

SGTPozy wrote:
Do we really need three different threads for this stuff? People hated on me for my "Cheesy" threads yet you've done the same.

I believe we do as the balancing of a core rules set, and the balancing internally and externally of each individual codex is too large and complicated for a single thread IMO. And that is how I'll approach it until a Mod tells me otherwise.

Please errata the Warp Spiders so that they can only jump in the enemy Shooting phase once. Currently, they can do it infinitely as long as enemy units are shooting at them. Thank you.

Was this errata made with the current codex, or just the hints from the rumor thread? Because it doesn't seem to match up with the Eldar Craftworld codex I know. Still, there are some good ideas here.

The Good/Obvious:
Change back to 6th edition Distort rules. No complaints there.
Wraithknight as MC, keeps current points cost. Wraithcannon upgrade too expensive IMO.
Windriders/Skyrunners get 4+ save. Keeps it consistent with other Eldar bikers.
Warp Spiders cost increase. They honestly deserve it, as well as only being able to only jump once in the enemy shooting phase.
Wraithlord points decrease. It needs it, and with that people might actually run it.

The Bad/Dumb:
2d6 highest for Warhost run move. Eldar already have fleet, so this isn't much of a change. I also fail to see how an automatic 6" run move from a restricted formation is that huge of a buff to warrant a nerf.
Scatter Laser to S5. The problem with the SL was that it had Laser Lock. Now that it's gone, the Scatter Laser isn't nearly as powerful. Why change to S5?
No change to Windrider weapon options. One per three is an obvious change that greatly decreases the brokenness of Scatbikers.
Change to Bladestorm. Shuriken weapons need it to provide Eldar infantry with gun that isn't the worst in the game. The change also has no effect on their ability to kill MEQ, if that was the intent.
Vehicle wargear is costed appropriately now for what they do. The only real change needed was Holo-Fields going to 5++.
Spiritseer allowing for slot swaps. This is 7th edition; no codex is doing this anymore.
Guardian weapons platforms are costed well now. They're also free in the Guardian Battlehost.
Storm Guardians, bad as they are, don't need to get worse with the removal of their meltas.
Exarch upgrades are costed appropriately in the current codex. The only real problem I have with them is how cheap the upgrade to them is. Should be 20 points.
Wave Serpent is fine now that the Serpent Shield was nerfed.
EML upgrade is too cheap. The reason it costs so much is that it has the longest range and most firing modes of any Eldar heavy weapon.
Crimson Death is fine the way it is now. 420 points for three AV10 flyers with a 4+ save is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
No mention of the Dire Avenger Shrine formation, which is much worse than Crimson Death.

In summary, this errata doesn't go far enough in key areas, and too far in others. Honestly, if you ignore the obvious brokenness and cheese of certain units, Eldar have a perfectly balanced codex. All this errata does in bring Eldar too far down in power.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Was this errata made with the current codex, or just the hints from the rumor thread? Because it doesn't seem to match up with the Eldar Craftworld codex I know. Still, there are some good ideas here.

The Good/Obvious:
Change back to 6th edition Distort rules. No complaints there.
Wraithknight as MC, keeps current points cost. Wraithcannon upgrade too expensive IMO.
Windriders/Skyrunners get 4+ save. Keeps it consistent with other Eldar bikers.
Warp Spiders cost increase. They honestly deserve it, as well as only being able to only jump once in the enemy shooting phase.
Wraithlord points decrease. It needs it, and with that people might actually run it.

The Bad/Dumb:
2d6 highest for Warhost run move. Eldar already have fleet, so this isn't much of a change. I also fail to see how an automatic 6" run move from a restricted formation is that huge of a buff to warrant a nerf.
Scatter Laser to S5. The problem with the SL was that it had Laser Lock. Now that it's gone, the Scatter Laser isn't nearly as powerful. Why change to S5?
No change to Windrider weapon options. One per three is an obvious change that greatly decreases the brokenness of Scatbikers.
Change to Bladestorm. Shuriken weapons need it to provide Eldar infantry with gun that isn't the worst in the game. The change also has no effect on their ability to kill MEQ, if that was the intent.
Vehicle wargear is costed appropriately now for what they do. The only real change needed was Holo-Fields going to 5++.
Spiritseer allowing for slot swaps. This is 7th edition; no codex is doing this anymore.
Guardian weapons platforms are costed well now. They're also free in the Guardian Battlehost.
Storm Guardians, bad as they are, don't need to get worse with the removal of their meltas.
Exarch upgrades are costed appropriately in the current codex. The only real problem I have with them is how cheap the upgrade to them is. Should be 20 points.
Wave Serpent is fine now that the Serpent Shield was nerfed.
EML upgrade is too cheap. The reason it costs so much is that it has the longest range and most firing modes of any Eldar heavy weapon.
Crimson Death is fine the way it is now. 420 points for three AV10 flyers with a 4+ save is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
No mention of the Dire Avenger Shrine formation, which is much worse than Crimson Death.

In summary, this errata doesn't go far enough in key areas, and too far in others. Honestly, if you ignore the obvious brokenness and cheese of certain units, Eldar have a perfectly balanced codex. All this errata does in bring Eldar too far down in power.

Yes, this is from the new codex, I'm not sure where you think it doesn't mesh well.
Thank you for your detailed response. It is greatly appreciated.

Glad you agree on the big changes, they really were the most important changes. You disagree with the 5W Wraithknight pricing? May I ask why?

The tone of Good/Obvious and Bad/Dumb lacks a bit of tact FYI...

Auto 6" was a bit much, esoecially with Battle Focus. And it was effectively a free boost, just because, which could be doubled up with other free boots for a Formations. 2d6 take the highest is still better than standard fleet, and will average 1" or so more and it's faster than Flert rolling as well, no decision.

S5 Scatter a lasers are a balanced weapon for cost and congruent with what other codices can get. At S6 they are undercosted. At S5 there is now decisions that need to be made between the big three, Shuriken Cannon, Scatter Laser, and Starcannon. It's not default in favor of the Scatter Laser. At cost it's still a great weapon, it was woefully undercosted previously.

With a 4+ AS and S5 Scatterlasers Windriders are now much more balanced, dropping them to 1:3 is no longer necessary, otherwise it would have worked with 4+ AS and S6 Scatter Lasers.

Blade storm becoming only AP3 is a huge boost to the Starcannon and forces designs in Eldar weaponry. Now there is a reason to pick up a Starcannon instead of a Shuriken Cannon. Against the vast majority of targets in the game they remain unchanged. It gives a needed boost to 2+ units and forces diversification to deal with 2+AS instead of it being a nonissue for Eldar. And the Eldar infantry weapon is not bad, not when they have Bladestorm, Battlefocus, and Fleet.

Things like the Crystal a Targeting Matrix were never seen, a little cost decrease will increase variety which is needed. Nothing got broke at this recosting.

No reason slot swapping can't happen anymore, and it's a useful mechanic to increase list flexibility,mane allows previously legal armies to still be legal. Non issue.

The Guardian Weapons point decrease is to help out Guardians as a whole, as you said they have the worst infantry gun in the game...

Storm guardians got a bit cheaper, and they didn't lose their Fusion Gun option at all. Don't know why you thought that...

Exarch options are and have been over costed,mesoecially the power weapon upgrade. This is true for all armies. The Exarch upgrade is fairly costed, small stat boost and an additional wound.

Wave a Serpent only got weapon pricing options consistent with the rest of the codex.

Missile Launchers in general aren't very effective weapons. M15ptsmwith a Skyfiremoption is balanced,mane helps against Flyers and FMCs, just like for Marines.

4+ is fine, re rollable 4+ for Jinking was not.


What areas haven't gone far enough? What areas have gone too far? What cheese have I ignored? Jetbikes Weapon Loadouts? They've received large nerds, their best weapons have been herded, and they lose their 3+ for a 4+, that is huge in gameplay terms meaning there are now a lot of effective counters readily available. M

How does this bring Eldar down too much?? Did you look at the SM Errata as well?

I did look at the Space Marine and General errata; there are plenty of problems there too, as others have pointed out.

The reason I used the terms "obvious" and "dumb" are because the problems with Eldar are glaringly obvious to anyone with even the slightest sense of game balance. Also, going by your thread title, you might enjoy some scorn and snark.

The problem with your suggestion of 2d6 highest for the Warhost is that Eldar have fleet, so it would be 2d6 picked re-rollable highest. Mathematically, this works out to around 5.5" average, so almost not a change for more hassle. Or are you getting rid of fleet for Eldar as well? Because that really would be dumb.

Battle Focus is the only reason why people play Footdar any more; it gives very squishy troops some needed mobility.

There is already enough differentiation between the Eldar heavy weapons. Just because Heavy Bolters are bad at S5 for their cost doesn't mean that SL should be made bad at S5. All this suggestion does is make the default Shuriken Cannon better.

The problem with Scatbikers is that they have too many heavy weapons in the squad, not that their heavy weapons are too good. It also doesn't address the Shuriken Cannon in the Windrider host.

People don't take Guardians for the heavy weapon; those are only to allow them to contribute at range. Guardians are taken because they are a cheap scoring unit that can shoot anything to death at close range, especially with psychic support.

The EML is fine at 15 points currently, same with the vehicle upgrades. The reason nobody took these before was because of monobuild tendencies in the previous codex with certain units *coughWaveSerpentscough*.

4+ re-rollable sounds tough, but keep in mind that these are AV10 3HP vehicles. They are not easy to take down, and jinking massively reduces their damage output.

Your suggestions address the fundamental problems of the new Eldar codex, but go too far in the other direction; applying nerfs and buffs where none were needed.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I did look at the Space Marine and General errata; there are plenty of problems there too, as others have pointed out.

The reason I used the terms "obvious" and "dumb" are because the problems with Eldar are glaringly obvious to anyone with even the slightest sense of game balance. Also, going by your thread title, you might enjoy some scorn and snark.

The problem with your suggestion of 2d6 highest for the Warhost is that Eldar have fleet, so it would be 2d6 picked re-rollable highest. Mathematically, this works out to around 5.5" average, so almost not a change for more hassle. Or are you getting rid of fleet for Eldar as well? Because that really would be dumb.

Battle Focus is the only reason why people play Footdar any more; it gives very squishy troops some needed mobility.

There is already enough differentiation between the Eldar heavy weapons. Just because Heavy Bolters are bad at S5 for their cost doesn't mean that SL should be made bad at S5. All this suggestion does is make the default Shuriken Cannon better.

The problem with Scatbikers is that they have too many heavy weapons in the squad, not that their heavy weapons are too good. It also doesn't address the Shuriken Cannon in the Windrider host.

People don't take Guardians for the heavy weapon; those are only to allow them to contribute at range. Guardians are taken because they are a cheap scoring unit that can shoot anything to death at close range, especially with psychic support.

The EML is fine at 15 points currently, same with the vehicle upgrades. The reason nobody took these before was because of monobuild tendencies in the previous codex with certain units *coughWaveSerpentscough*.

4+ re-rollable sounds tough, but keep in mind that these are AV10 3HP vehicles. They are not easy to take down, and jinking massively reduces their damage output.

Your suggestions address the fundamental problems of the new Eldar codex, but go too far in the other direction; applying nerfs and buffs where none were needed.

Plenty of problems there too... Like? I'm looking for good armaments on specific points.

I do like scorn and snark,mane good arguments, haha.

Dammit, you are right. Why did I not think abou the fleet Rerollable. I'll think on this, it is dumb and needs to change...

Battlefocus is crucial for footdar, no argument there. You are acting as if the change to Shuriken nerfs them hard, it doesn't, it's a nonissue against the vast majority of targets.

No, there was not effective variation between Eldar weapons,miss why Scatter Lasers were the default and why we call them Scattbikes. Heavy 4 at 36" Scatter Lasers were superior. How many Starcannons have you seen fielded lately? Not a one in 6th or 7th. Why? There was no reason to, the volume of fire at Str6 of the Scatter Laser was too good, Laser Lock made it much worse.

Heavy4 Str5 AP6 36"
Heavy3 Str6 AP5 24" AP3 on a 6
Heavy2 Str6 AP2 36"

That kind of equal costed weapon selection breeds variety and difficult choices, each excels at certain things, Scatter Lasers no longer excel at almost everything.

No, their Heavy Weapons were both too good, too numerous, and we're on a cheap spam able platform. The main reason I didn't drop to 1:3 for Windriders is that their new kit has so many Heavys, and given the 4+ AS, the less effective Scatter Laser, and the marginally less effective Shuriken Cannon they are a far more balanced unit.

Guardians are still as cheap, and their ranged contribution got a bit cheaper, in line with other codex options. And they still murder everything that isn't a 2+ AS or T8+ as they did before. Problem??

So we agree on the EML. And yes, last edition was bad for variety. Though, CTM did need a points drop.

No, 4+ standard and 4+ Rerollable was too much when the only cost was taking three good units. The change is still good, but there is a decision to make now. And 5+/3+ is still a very solid incentive for a good unit to be taken in trio.

Glad we agree that I've addressed the fundamental problems in the codex. We are disagreeing on the minor points, I'm not sure what buffs you are really disagreeing with, or how large of an impact they have. Given most of my buffs are incentivizing options we never see, and would amount to 20-30 Pts per army, that still necessitates additional cost in many cases. And the nerfs are meant to rebalance and incentivize variety among options. Both are consistent with my wither balance errata and balanced towards the what I am aiming at as the "sweets pot" for balance.

Would you compare my C:SM and C:EC Balance Erratas in context and tell me to what degree these two armies will be playable in both casual and competitive games and if and to what degree the balance has been improved or worsened? Don't compare them to tournament standard, but to the newly created balance between the codices. Context is key. I'll settle for any unit that is now too good, or one that is too bad? Less generalizations and more analysis of the particular problems created or remaining.

Thank you again for the detailed response, and thank you for pointing out I'm a Moron with the Warhost Run modification.

I really like why you're doing. And really agree with most of what you've come to. That said, I do disagree with some points. Which is natural - the closer you get to balance, the more split people will be in regards to your suggestions.

To be clear, overall, what you have done is better than the current state. Don't mistake my criticisms!

On to the specifics about Eldar:

It feels like this writeup is mostly "Last Dex -1". Which is probably a good thing - as a whole the last dex was cleaner and better. That said, in some cases, perhaps it'd be better to stick to the new paradigm.

The WraithKnight. Everyone's favorite pseudo GMC. Your proposed solution is to basically revert it to the last book and drop a HP. I felt like the last book went wrong where it tried to make it as much a GMC it could without using those rules. I think it really should be a GMC.
That said, the new book made things worse by (1) criminally undercosted a mini-Titan, and (2) made spamming it both possible and easy, despite the move to LoW.
It seems to me that the appropriate fix is a points boost. And deny spam. Perhaps 360 for Wraithcannons, 350 for the other build? And limit its selection in any Detachment (see Wraith Constrict) to 0-1. How would that route compare to the above?

Bladestorm. I think its the most overrated thing in the CW Eldar toolbox, but many (including you) think its one of the most stupid. I've argued most points to death elsewhere, so won't go too far into this one. Being AP3 and not auto wounding on a 6 will work, if necessary. Remember that CW Eldar get very little in the way of Specialist and Heavy weapons. The Shiriken Catapult is already a very weak weapon (12" range), and the Avenger Shuriken Cstapault needs to be better than the Boltgun or Gauss Rifle somehow. If we were redoing units (out of scope) other fixes become reasonable, but this'll work.

Scatter Lasers. We need to decide if this is an analogue to the Heavy Bolter or the Assault Cannon. As discussed elsewhere, S5 makes it compare reasonably to the Heavy Bolter, and so you've re-pointed it to match. The other option is to point it as an analogue to the Assault Cannon. Different roles but comparable. Either change should work.

Runes of the Farseer. They didn't need that buff. Much less for free. That said, when doing CSM (or Tigiris), take note of Spell Familiar. Recall how amazing rerolling Psyker checks. Then ask why CSM sorcerers should be so much better at psykers than Farseers. Again, your Change works. Just a comment.

Gotta start writing code. I'll respond more later.

Bharring wrote:
I really like why you're doing. And really agree with most of what you've come to. That said, I do disagree with some points. Which is natural - the closer you get to balance, the more split people will be in regards to your suggestions.

To be clear, overall, what you have done is better than the current state. Don't mistake my criticisms!

On to the specifics about Eldar:

It feels like this writeup is mostly "Last Dex -1". Which is probably a good thing - as a whole the last dex was cleaner and better. That said, in some cases, perhaps it'd be better to stick to the new paradigm.

The WraithKnight. Everyone's favorite pseudo GMC. Your proposed solution is to basically revert it to the last book and drop a HP. I felt like the last book went wrong where it tried to make it as much a GMC it could without using those rules. I think it really should be a GMC.
That said, the new book made things worse by (1) criminally undercosted a mini-Titan, and (2) made spamming it both possible and easy, despite the move to LoW.
It seems to me that the appropriate fix is a points boost. And deny spam. Perhaps 360 for Wraithcannons, 350 for the other build? And limit its selection in any Detachment (see Wraith Constrict) to 0-1. How would that route compare to the above?

Bladestorm. I think its the most overrated thing in the CW Eldar toolbox, but many (including you) think its one of the most stupid. I've argued most points to death elsewhere, so won't go too far into this one. Being AP3 and not auto wounding on a 6 will work, if necessary. Remember that CW Eldar get very little in the way of Specialist and Heavy weapons. The Shiriken Catapult is already a very weak weapon (12" range), and the Avenger Shuriken Cstapault needs to be better than the Boltgun or Gauss Rifle somehow. If we were redoing units (out of scope) other fixes become reasonable, but this'll work.

Scatter Lasers. We need to decide if this is an analogue to the Heavy Bolter or the Assault Cannon. As discussed elsewhere, S5 makes it compare reasonably to the Heavy Bolter, and so you've re-pointed it to match. The other option is to point it as an analogue to the Assault Cannon. Different roles but comparable. Either change should work.

Runes of the Farseer. They didn't need that buff. Much less for free. That said, when doing CSM (or Tigiris), take note of Spell Familiar. Recall how amazing rerolling Psyker checks. Then ask why CSM sorcerers should be so much better at psykers than Farseers. Again, your Change works. Just a comment.

Gotta start writing code. I'll respond more later.

Thank you for the feedback, all is welcome. Disagreeing and discussion is critical.

Last Dex -1... That wasn't necessarily my intention, granted if I had been modifying the last Dex I would have ended up in a similar place. I did add the a Troop Swap for Wraithguard, but that was to keep old armies legal and viable in a CAD or AD. People don't like losing army construction rules and legal armies. I did alter the Wraithknight back, and I will explain why I did that.

The main reason I altered the Wraithknight back to an Mc is because my General a rules are restrictive on MCs and I wanted people to have and want to play their Wraithknights to do so in a balanced fashion. I considered putting in a a dual profile, one to MC and another a recosted GMC.

Wraithknight
300pts with Glaive and Shield
320pts Suncannon and Shield
340pts Dual Heavy Wraithcannons
Standard bonus gun options. This assumes D to Distort but keeps D Melee for the Glaive. With D Heavy Wraithcannons we'd be looking at 380pts.

Remove the 0-12 Wraithknight /Detachment for 0-1.

I'm completely not opposed to that unit profile as well, or listing it as a dual profile in SH/GC allowed settings. I am gearing this towards non SH/GC play and was looking as SH/GC as a separate standard.

Bladestorm: my change doesn't make Bladestorm any weaker against the vast majority of unit, it's basically unchanged, all it really does is remove AP2 from from basic infantry and just about every Eldar Unit. Needs to be better than the Boltgun or tr the Guass a rifle, it has AP3 access which means pound for pound in 12" range it is superior against 3+ and 4+ AS targets and equal against 2+. The only target it isn't better than is AV11+ and T8+. The Avenger is vastly superior from 12-18". And the Catapult is on 8-9ppm units. Basic infantry should not have access to AP2 shooting on all units. Eldar have access to lots of AP2 and volume of fire.

Scatter Lasers. It's not about a HB or AC analog, incorrect thinking. It's about creating varied weapon options that have roughly equal value and different uses. We didn't see Starcannons for a couple of reasons, AP2 was covered with Bladestorm, it was generally 5pts more costly, and it had a lower rate of fire. Now, given the options we have tougher decisions to make and it's no longer a Scatter Lasers by a mile. All three have merit, Starcannon beings S6 AP2 and range, Scatter a laser brings arrange and volume of S5 Fire, and the Shuriken Cannon brings good volume of fire S6 and AP3(6). There is no longer a clear cut winner and much better internal balance. I would have easily recosted the Scatter Laser, it was too good for its cost, now it's balanced.

I made their once per phase buff once per game. I know Spell a familiar is too cheap for what it does now, and Tigerius got a 20pt cost increase already. I am doing my best for consistency and appreciate these kinds of comments, and when I make a consistency error.

Thank you again for the feedback.

Zagman, I hope you are aware to the fact that Bladestorm turns only To Wound rolls of 6 into AP2. That's as much as 1 AP2 Wound per 6 Bladestorm Wounds. So ten Avengers firing 20 shots with their Shuriken Catapults will score something like 2 AP2 Wounds, roughly as much as any random unit with BS4 and 2 plasma guns. The rest of their shots will be no better than your average Boltgun shots. And two plasma guns in a basic infantry unit isn't such a big deal. In fact, the 10 Avengers with their 20 shots aren't such a big deal either. 10 Fire Warriors do roughly the same damage to targets with 2+ saves with their Strength 5 guns.

If you want to shake up Eldar weapons, then revamp Shuriken weapons from the ground: say, decrease their Strength by 1 (2 for the Shuriken Cannon) and add +1 RoF (double the RoF for the Shuriken Cannon). This way, you have the ultimate infantry killer weapon family, while the Scatter Laser is the jack-of-all-trades, and the Starcannon is the big guy (increase its Strength to 7 because Strength 6 is stupid for this weapon).

Also, the Warp Spiders still have unlimited jumps in the enemy Shooting Phase. Feel my disappointment .

 AtoMaki wrote:
Zagman, I hope you are aware to the fact that Bladestorm turns only To Wound rolls of 6 into AP2. That's as much as 1 AP2 Wound per 6 Bladestorm Wounds. So ten Avengers firing 20 shots with their Shuriken Catapults will score something like 2 AP2 Wounds, roughly as much as any random unit with BS4 and 2 plasma guns. The rest of their shots will be no better than your average Boltgun shots. And two plasma guns in a basic infantry unit isn't such a big deal. In fact, the 10 Avengers with their 20 shots aren't such a big deal either. 10 Fire Warriors do roughly the same damage to targets with 2+ saves with their Strength 5 guns.

If you want to shake up Eldar weapons, then revamp Shuriken weapons from the ground: say, decrease their Strength by 1 (2 for the Shuriken Cannon) and add +1 RoF (double the RoF for the Shuriken Cannon). This way, you have the ultimate infantry killer weapon family, while the Scatter Laser is the jack-of-all-trades, and the Starcannon is the big guy (increase its Strength to 7 because Strength 6 is stupid for this weapon).

Also, the Warp Spiders still have unlimited jumps in the enemy Shooting Phase. Feel my disappointment .

I'm well aware of the Math haha, but in rapid fire range 80pts of Storm Guardians and 90pts of Guardian Defenders deal .73 wounds through 2+AS and 2.2 wounds that ignore armor. So 3 Wounds.

Five Tacticals with Plasmagun 85 pts(80 under my errata) deals .44 wounds through 2+AS and 1.1 wounds that ignore armor. 1.5 Wounds. It'd have to be 10 Tacticals with 2 Plasma Guns to put out the same damage as 10 Guardians.

Under my changes the Guardians put out 1.1 Wounds to the Tacticals 1.5, and that gap is quickly narrowed if Invuln or Cover saves are in play. With 4+ Cover the Guardians still outshoot the Tactivals per point against their worst target profile. Now, this obviously ignores durability etc, but against the one profile where it matters the guardians are still just fine, and it should show just how potent they were before.

We're talking about the single worst target profile for them now 2+ AS, and Eldar have lost of units that excel against them and a cheaper Starcannon as well.

That kind of revamp could also work, but I was looking forge rally the easiest and smallest changes to create the desired effect.

I'll fix the Warp Spider ability,Morris.

Ignoring range and durability, of course they look strong. Factoring it in, however, it is a different story.

If 13 Guardians get the drop on 9 CSM (same points), their best target, they kill 5. Good round.

If 9 CSM get the drop on 13 Guardians (Assume RF range), they kill 8. Much better round.

So, ignoring everything but optimal strength and durability, it isn't looking so good for Guardians as a troop of the line.

Start talking range (CSM should get 2 rounds of non-RF shooting first), and things become scary bad for Guardians.

Ignoring range and durability, only focusing on shot strength, is of course going to make short range, GEQ survivable units look OP.

All that said, Guardians aren't troops of the line so much as specialists.

They man their heavy weapon, and hold a backfield objective. Getting them within 12" range is a very costly endeavor for the Eldar player. And they die just as fast as 5ppm Guardsmen.

(I'd still accept AP3 on 6 Bladestorm, just trying to clean up the math.)

 Zagman wrote:

I'm well aware of the Math haha, but in rapid fire range 80pts of Storm Guardians and 90pts of Guardian Defenders deal .73 wounds through 2+AS and 2.2 wounds that ignore armor. So 3 Wounds.

Five Tacticals with Plasmagun 85 pts(80 under my errata) deals .44 wounds through 2+AS and 1.1 wounds that ignore armor. 1.5 Wounds. It'd have to be 10 Tacticals with 2 Plasma Guns to put out the same damage as 10 Guardians.

10 IG veterans with 2 plasma guns (90 points) will do the same damage as the Guardians. For a meager +15 points, they will cause one more Wound with the plasma guns alone.

Tactical pay their points for the 3+ armor, the S4/T4, ATSKNF and the other stuff they get. Guardians can outshoot Marines, and the Marines outperform the Guardians in every other field (maybe the Guardians have a slight edge in terms of tactical mobility because Battle Focus and Fleet, but the Marines can take a Chapter Tactic to boost their mobility and deal with it). Like, what would survive 20 boltgun shots better? 90 points of Guardians or 90 points of Space Marines?

Bharring wrote:Ignoring range and durability, of course they look strong. Factoring it in, however, it is a different story.

If 13 Guardians get the drop on 9 CSM (same points), their best target, they kill 5. Good round.

If 9 CSM get the drop on 13 Guardians (Assume RF range), they kill 8. Much better round.

So, ignoring everything but optimal strength and durability, it isn't looking so good for Guardians as a troop of the line.

Start talking range (CSM should get 2 rounds of non-RF shooting first), and things become scary bad for Guardians.

Ignoring range and durability, only focusing on shot strength, is of course going to make short range, GEQ survivable units look OP.

All that said, Guardians aren't troops of the line so much as specialists.

They man their heavy weapon, and hold a backfield objective. Getting them within 12" range is a very costly endeavor for the Eldar player. And they die just as fast as 5ppm Guardsmen.

(I'd still accept AP3 on 6 Bladestorm, just trying to clean up the math.)

But, this situation isn't as easily quantifiable with math. And using 3+ troops is the same as the current Bladestorm, so the comparison is kind of moot. Also, now we are using Marines against their best target and assuming no Special, all of which changes the breakdown considerably.

We also need to factor in BattleFocus and Fleet for effective thread. CSM have 18" threat at 100% damage output, 30" threat at 50% damage output. Guardian have effective 22-24" Threat at 100% which changes the comparison considerably.

Direct comparison in a vacuum like this is difficult to quantify accurately. I agree that in general Guardian needed a bit of a boost which is why Storm Guardians got a one ppm drop and Guardian Defenders got a bit cheaper(almost one ppm) drop on their Heavy Weapons. I agree they aren't troops of the line and do serve specialist roles.

And CSM isn't the best target for Shuriken Catapults, its be T6 3+ targets, 10 Guardians averages 2.2 wounds against a standard MC chassis.

We are agreeing on many points, I just view easy access AP2 on a basic trooper too much, AP3 keeps them competitive. In the other thread, you did convice me quickly, as I didn't run the numbers, that AP4 Bladestomr was foolish.

AtoMaki wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

I'm well aware of the Math haha, but in rapid fire range 80pts of Storm Guardians and 90pts of Guardian Defenders deal .73 wounds through 2+AS and 2.2 wounds that ignore armor. So 3 Wounds.

Five Tacticals with Plasmagun 85 pts(80 under my errata) deals .44 wounds through 2+AS and 1.1 wounds that ignore armor. 1.5 Wounds. It'd have to be 10 Tacticals with 2 Plasma Guns to put out the same damage as 10 Guardians.

10 IG veterans with 2 plasma guns (90 points) will do the same damage as the Guardians. For a meager +15 points, they will cause one more Wound with the plasma guns alone.

Tactical pay their points for the 3+ armor, the S4/T4, ATSKNF and the other stuff they get. Guardians can outshoot Marines, and the Marines outperform the Guardians in every other field (maybe the Guardians have a slight edge in terms of tactical mobility because Battle Focus and Fleet, but the Marines can take a Chapter Tactic to boost their mobility and deal with it). Like, what would survive 20 boltgun shots better? 90 points of Guardians or 90 points of Space Marines?

Yes, and IG Veterans lack the tactical flexibility of the Guardians ie BattleFocus and Bladestorm. Its a roughly equal tradeoff, which is really what we are looking for. Not to mention that Bladestorm isn't likely do kill those special weapons out of the unit, an IG Vet rapid firing a Plasmagun has just over a 20% chance of killing himself every time he fires it, and 50% chance once dies when you Rapid Fire all three.

We are also comparing situations where Guardians are using their default weaponry and both IG and Marines need to choose the correct Special Weapon.

Tacticals don't outperform in every role, Guardian Defenders are good at long range support fire, and with a Warlock can be very durable at range for units of 20. It ultimately boils down to each choice should bring a roughly equal impact to the game. My change to Bladestorm only affects two target profiles, 2+AS and T8+, but against the vast majority of targets the math remains unchanged, except Storm Guardians got an 11% discound in points cost and Guardian Defenders get cheaper acccess to their Heavy Weapon.

All of those changes enhance balance, or don't change the existing balance.






What is the biggest reason that Bladestorm should still be AP2? Or is the gripe that Guardians themselves are not good enough and don't deserve any nerf? Or that the nerf to Bladestorm overpowers the small buffs both units recieved?

It really comes down to is are ShuriKats the CWE equivalent to Boltguns or Boltgun/PG mixes?

I still accept the nerf, but would feel better about it if we were closer to agreement on that point.

Bharring wrote:
It really comes down to is are ShuriKats the CWE equivalent to Boltguns or Boltgun/PG mixes?

I still accept the nerf, but would feel better about it if we were closer to agreement on that point.

Fair enough. I don't see them as an equivalent of either, but a unique blend of the two. They are the CWE's unique stock ranged weapon that has more utility and power than Boltguns, but does not rival the power of Boltgun/Plasmagun mixes, for that, Eldar will need to turn to their specialist units and specialist weapons. Eldar are Specialists in general, why is their basic weapon effectively the ultimate generalist(with AP2 Bladestorm) infantry weapon. Unchanged Bladestorm ravages any nonvehicle in the game and is the ultimate basic infantry weapon.

I see how if you look at Shuriken as the Boltgun/Plasmagun equivalent on basic infantry it works. I could accept that if the army had limited access to AP2 and it needed it on its basic infantry, but that simply is not the case. Eldar have access to volume of fire and specialized AP2/1 weapons and Rending that they do not need to fufill the anti heavy infantry role with generic guardian.


Also, here is a new vs old breakdown of the Heavy Weapons vs differing targets, in most cases the Starcannon still costs 5pts more.

Old Scatter Laser Heavy4 S6 AP6 36" Range


Old Shuriken Cannon Heavy 3 S6 AP5 Bladestorm(AP2) 24" Range


StarCannon Heavy 2 S6 AP2 36" Range


New Scatter Laser Heavy4 S5 AP6 36" Range


New Shuriken Cannon Heavy 3 S6 AP5 Bladestorm(AP3) 24" Range


These look much more balanced and effective as weapon selections, with scatter lasers being far more balanced and filling a role, instead of being the best standard heavy for Light AT and good or the best against most threat types at the same cost.

Also, I've decided to make the Wraithknight back into a GMC as stated above with the changes from D to Distort. I'm also going to lift the SH/GMC Restrictions and Flyer restrictions from the general game rules. Though, I'm going to add a disclaimer that these Errata are for the Codices listed and the selected Supplements. I was worried about opening up too much content, this seems like a reasonable solution and I'll be able to blance Flyers and FMCs well enough to greatly improve balance

Thanks for all the feedback so far, keep it coming!

5-18-15 Chnaged to

Wraithknight: 300pts
Wargear: Ghostglaive and Scattershield
May exchange Ghostglaive and Scattershield for.... Suncannon and Scattershield: 20pts; Two Heavy Wraithcannons: 40pts
May take up to two of the following in any combination... Scatter Laser: 10pts each; Shuriken Cannon: 10pts each; Scarcannon: 15pts each

5-18-15 Add

Restrictions: Add "Only one Wraithknight may be selected as a Wraith-Constructs Command Formation/Dataslate per Craftworld Warhost, this does not impact the number of Wraithknights that can be fielded through the Wraith Host Formation."

5-18-15 Add

Flickerjump: Add "Only one Flickerjump may be made per Opponent's Shooting Phase."

Gets better 'n better.

Bharring wrote:
Gets better 'n better.

I'll take that as your stamp of approval, haha. That is what feedback and discussion are for.

For Matchless Agility, Crusader isn't the right fit, sure, but largely because it would invalidate getting Crusader.

The biggest balancing factor for BattleFocus, aside from durability (don't laugh! We aren't all Wraiths and vehicles!), is supposed to be its unreliability. Rolling that 1 is bad.

The minimum-4 goes a long way yo eliminate it.

Some alternate ideas:
-Language identical to Crusader, but not Crusader (When this unit Runs, roll an additional die, and discard the lowest).
-+1" to the Run (simple, but powerful)
-Minimum equal to number of Warhost Guardian (Storm, Defender, or Windrider) squads on the board (or within 24"), capped at 6". Sure, it could mean auto-4" or auto-6" run, but it would be insanely costly to go above 3, and the opponent has a clear path for reducing the benefit.

Thoughts?

Bharring wrote:
For Matchless Agility, Crusader isn't the right fit, sure, but largely because it would invalidate getting Crusader.

The biggest balancing factor for BattleFocus, aside from durability (don't laugh! We aren't all Wraiths and vehicles!), is supposed to be its unreliability. Rolling that 1 is bad.

The minimum-4 goes a long way yo eliminate it.

Some alternate ideas:
-Language identical to Crusader, but not Crusader (When this unit Runs, roll an additional die, and discard the lowest).
-+1" to the Run (simple, but powerful)
-Minimum equal to number of Warhost Guardian (Storm, Defender, or Windrider) squads on the board (or within 24"), capped at 6". Sure, it could mean auto-4" or auto-6" run, but it would be insanely costly to go above 3, and the opponent has a clear path for reducing the benefit.

Thoughts?

The problem with Roll 2 dicard the lowest, which is basically what I originally had, is fleet. So, we'd have Roll two dice, reroll one dice or both dice, dicard the lowest. The math gets complicated as you well know, but its already a 6% chance of getting a 3 or less, only a 1.2% chance of rolling a 2 or less etc, so this suggestion is just defacto my 4" minimum suggestion. Could very well be a 3" minimum, which would allow them reroll all 1, 2, 3s...

+1" was my second thought, it is simple and works, makes the range 2-7" but isn't super reliable. 11% chance of rolling a 2 or less after rerolls, making it a 3"-7" range effectively.

The 4" minimum means that they still have ~ 44% chance of only getting a 4" run with Fleet. Without Fleet it is 66% 4"...

The 3" minimum means that they still have a 25% chance of only getting a 3" run with Fleet. Without Fleet it is 50% 3".

When I made my initial revision I was thinking solely of the effect of Fleet, but now it makes more sense. Wraith Host was the biggest concern of gaining Battle Focus and and gaining an auto 6", it was a +33% increase to the standard Wraithguard threat range and + 43% increase to the threat range of WraithScythes.

I think I will revise it to be a minimum of 3", because as we've shown that for any unit with Fleet it just doesn't matter, the math virtually rules out rolling a 1 or 2" run and causes players to roll lots of unecessary dice. This change speeds things up, just not as much as auto 6" did.



5-19-15 Revised

Craftworld Warhost
Command Benefits: Matchless Agility: "If a unit composed entirely of models from this Detachment Runs, it never counts as rolling less than a 3 for its run distance regardless of the die roll or reroll with Fleet."

Outliers are huge when either you need to cover distance to get in range, or if you need distance or get destroyed.

Imagine a couple scenarios:
-Guardians are 21 inches from target. They can move up, and plan on a 3 for run, and murderise being within 12". However, a 1 or 2 mean they don't get to shoot at all, and get absolutely destroyed next round. Is it worth the risk? Up to the player. Quite scary.
-Instead, Guardians are in range. They unload at 12". And run away. They roll a 2. Do they reroll? If they don't, the enemy has to charge at most 8". If they do, there is a 1/6 chance they only need a 7. (Throw in the Gamer's Inch - annoying, but usually innocent - and it gets a lot closer). When do you reroll? When not? Not as simple as it usually seems.

Perhaps allow them to take a 3" run *or* roll? The chance for terrible is quite important, I feel.

(What you have works, just trying to make it better.)

Bharring wrote:
Outliers are huge when either you need to cover distance to get in range, or if you need distance or get destroyed.

Imagine a couple scenarios:
-Guardians are 21 inches from target. They can move up, and plan on a 3 for run, and murderise being within 12". However, a 1 or 2 mean they don't get to shoot at all, and get absolutely destroyed next round. Is it worth the risk? Up to the player. Quite scary.
-Instead, Guardians are in range. They unload at 12". And run away. They roll a 2. Do they reroll? If they don't, the enemy has to charge at most 8". If they do, there is a 1/6 chance they only need a 7. (Throw in the Gamer's Inch - annoying, but usually innocent - and it gets a lot closer). When do you reroll? When not? Not as simple as it usually seems.

Perhaps allow them to take a 3" run *or* roll? The chance for terrible is quite important, I feel.

(What you have works, just trying to make it better.)

I definitely hear what you are saying, and in premise I like the idea of failing... but... is what we have now a significant enough improvement over the Stock Matchless Agility... and is there a need for a more complicated.

The problem with 3 or roll is Fleet, and having to spell out the interaction. I guess it does work if they choose before rolling and the decision stands, fleet is usually going to be superior in all but 11% of times... 5.5% chance for a 2 and 5.5% chance for a 1 assuming they reroll only 1s and 2s.

3 or roll is definitely the most workable solution, but is it necessary? Convince me, haha.

Note: Warp Spiders, RaW cannot Flickerjump more than once. The rule for Flickerjump states that the Warp Spiders make a "Warp jump" that is limited to 2D6" rather than 2D6+6". When you look at the rule for Warp jump, it states, "roll once each turn" (referring to the distance moved). If you can only make that roll once in a turn, you can only Flickerjump once.

Zag--I'll wait until you 'balance' the Tau codex to decide how I feel about 4+ armor save jetbikes, etc.

DCannon4Life wrote:
Note: Warp Spiders, RaW cannot Flickerjump more than once. The rule for Flickerjump states that the Warp Spiders make a "Warp jump" that is limited to 2D6" rather than 2D6+6". When you look at the rule for Warp jump, it states, "roll once each turn" (referring to the distance moved). If you can only make that roll once in a turn, you can only Flickerjump once.

Zag--I'll wait until you 'balance' the Tau codex to decide how I feel about 4+ armor save jetbikes, etc.

That is a tenuous RAW situation as Flickerjump is its own special rule that is triggered each time it is targeted, either way spelling it out doesn't hurt anything and avoids a RAW dispute.


I have a pretty good idea what the Tau Codex needs.... but the big ones off the top of my head are....

Limit to 2 Signature Systems per model, huge hit to the BuffCommander that is very much needed.
Some tweak to break the Farsight Bomb, maybe just a Farsight and Shadowsun may never be in the same unit stipulation, or a No Scatter Deepstrike doesn't work if any other ICs are in the unit. Or each of the seven suits must have a unique systems loadout. Have to think on this.
Riptide Ion Accelerator becomes a 30-40pt upgrade. The HBCtide isn't bad due to killing itself with NOVA, but the IA is what breaks the Riptide, by reducing the need to NOVA it greatly increases its durability, and a Large Blast S8 AP2 in arn army with access to Ignores cover... Or just make the IA AP3 unless NOVAed which is fitting with other Ion weapons. Either way, its needed.
Broadsides increase in cost 5pts, Heavy Rail Rifle gets buffed or the HYMP becomes an upgrade for cost which just increases its total cost.
Early Warning Override to 10 pts. 5pt Interceptor was a joke, or it has a special higher cost for Riptides ie 5/15pts.
Sergeant Upgrades to 5pts like my other Errata
Flyers get a rework or at least a points drop.
Vespids become better and or cheaper.
Pathfinder Upgrades drop in price.
Stealth Teams get better or just cheaper
Hammerheads get better or more likely just cheaper
Devilfish gets a slight tweak... maybe
Plus wargear upgrade price tweaking as in my other Erratas.

Tau weren't a bad codex at all, but the ability to Stack Sig Systems onto one model for the BuffCommander was just bad, they grossly underpriced the Ion Accelerator upgrade, underpriced HYMP Broadsides, underpriced the Early Warning Override Upgrade, and made the Farsight Bomb a thing. Relatively an easy codex to write a Balance Errata for. Once the strongest options are fixed and the weakest are fixed Tau are sitting at a decent balance point.

 Zagman wrote:

DCannon4Life wrote:
Note: Warp Spiders, RaW cannot Flickerjump more than once. The rule for Flickerjump states that the Warp Spiders make a "Warp jump" that is limited to 2D6" rather than 2D6+6". When you look at the rule for Warp jump, it states, "roll once each turn" (referring to the distance moved). If you can only make that roll once in a turn, you can only Flickerjump once.

Zag--I'll wait until you 'balance' the Tau codex to decide how I feel about 4+ armor save jetbikes, etc.

That is a tenuous RAW situation as Flickerjump is its own special rule that is triggered each time it is targeted, either way spelling it out doesn't hurt anything and avoids a RAW dispute.

Sure, Flickerjump 'triggers', but the process can only be completed once: The rule for Warp jump (which is what a Flickerjump is: "...it can immediately make a Warp jump" (p 124)) is explained on page 154. In it, we are directed to, "roll once per unit each turn" (p 154), when making a Warp jump. So, if we've already rolled for a unit once this turn, we cannot roll again. That doesn't seem tenuous at all.

DCannon4Life wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

DCannon4Life wrote:
Note: Warp Spiders, RaW cannot Flickerjump more than once. The rule for Flickerjump states that the Warp Spiders make a "Warp jump" that is limited to 2D6" rather than 2D6+6". When you look at the rule for Warp jump, it states, "roll once each turn" (referring to the distance moved). If you can only make that roll once in a turn, you can only Flickerjump once.

Zag--I'll wait until you 'balance' the Tau codex to decide how I feel about 4+ armor save jetbikes, etc.

That is a tenuous RAW situation as Flickerjump is its own special rule that is triggered each time it is targeted, either way spelling it out doesn't hurt anything and avoids a RAW dispute.

Sure, Flickerjump 'triggers', but the process can only be completed once: The rule for Warp jump (which is what a Flickerjump is: "...it can immediately make a Warp jump" (p 124)) is explained on page 154. In it, we are directed to, "roll once per unit each turn" (p 154), when making a Warp jump. So, if we've already rolled for a unit once this turn, we cannot roll again. That doesn't seem tenuous at all.

Actually RAW tell us to only roll once per turn, not that it can't be used more than once, to by RAW every time they are targeted they move the same distance, but still have infinite moves. As I said, the RAW is a mess, adding a clarification does no harm and only alleviates potential arguments.


Thoughts on the rough Tau Errata outline?

Sounds more like it'd be better served by a YMDC thread. (Sounds tenuous to me, but don't have my book on hand.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For Farsight bomb, possibly make any unit with Shadowsun or Space Pope in them Allies of Convienince with any units with Farsight in them? Or just a 'Must join Bodyguard, no other model may join Bodyguard' on Farsight?

Restrictions: Add "Only one Wraithknight may be selected as a Wraith-Constructs Command Formation/Dataslate per Craftworld Warhost, this does not impact the number of Wraithknights that can be fielded through the Wraith Host Formation."

A game wide restriction of one LOW even in Formations and unbound would solve the problem for every list out there, and the future codices

Weapon Profiles
Scatter Laser
Range: 36" Strength: 5 AP: 6 Heavy 4

This fixes nothing other than wounding result, limits to the jetbike squad make more sense.

Shuriken
Bladestorm: "When firing a weapon with this special rule, a To wound roll of a 6 is resolved at AP3, but does not wound automatically regardless of toughness."

I agree here helps against MEQ, but still allows terminators to be useful

Replace Weapon Profiles for Distortion Weapons

D-Scythe
Range: Template Strength: 4 AP: 2 Assault 1, Distort

Heavy D-Scythe
Range: 18" Strength: 4 AP AP: 2 Assault 1, Blast, Distort

Wraithcannon
Range: 12" Strength: 10 AP: 2 Assault 1, Distort

D-Cannon
Range: 24 Strength: 10 AP: 2 Heavy 1, Barrage, Blast

WHY they always have had distort and saw very little fielding, they should keep distort

Heavy Wraithcannon
Range: 36: Strength: 10 AP: 2 Heavy 1, Distort

Distort: When rolling To Wound against non-vehicle models with this weapon, on a roll of a 6, it wounds automatically regardless of toughness and has the Instant Death Special Rule. Against vehicle models, on a roll of a 6 for armor penetration, it automatically causes a penetrating hit regardless of whether the armor penetration roll was greater than the Armor Value or not.

the 6th rules were fine

Treasures of Vaul
Eldar Jetbike: "A model riding an Eldar jetbike has a 4+ Armour Save and a twin-linked shuriken catapult. Their unit type also changes to Eldar Jetbike (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules)."

limits to the wargear are just fine to tone down jetbikes they always were 3+ armor, they were not a problem until this codex allowed all heavy weapons


Wraithknight: 300pts
Wargear: Ghostglaive and Scattershield
May exchange Ghostglaive and Scattershield for.... Suncannon and Scattershield: 20pts; Two Heavy Wraithcannons: 40pts
May take up to two of the following in any combination... Scatter Laser: 10pts each; Shuriken Cannon: 10pts each; Scarcannon: 15pts each

When considering you changed the heavy wraith cannon to distort 300 points is fine, again was the heavy wraith cannons a problem in 6th ed codex, nope

Stealth Suits probably only need a points drop. Their weapons should be good.

Why is Marker light/Target Lock so expensive on a Fire Warrior sarge, but so cheap on a Stealth Suits sarge?

Also, changes in ML cover-removal (such as -1 cover save per ML spent), or other ML changes are probably out of scope?

Bharring wrote:Sounds more like it'd be better served by a YMDC thread. (Sounds tenuous to me, but don't have my book on hand.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For Farsight bomb, possibly make any unit with Shadowsun or Space Pope in them Allies of Convienince with any units with Farsight in them? Or just a 'Must join Bodyguard, no other model may join Bodyguard' on Farsight?

Yep, I'm thinking along these lines, but we should move the Tau discussion over to the Necron Errata, its where they'll be located. I'll be adding DE and Harlequins to this thread eventually.

Rune Stonegrinder wrote:Restrictions: Add "Only one Wraithknight may be selected as a Wraith-Constructs Command Formation/Dataslate per Craftworld Warhost, this does not impact the number of Wraithknights that can be fielded through the Wraith Host Formation."

A game wide restriction of one LOW even in Formations and unbound would solve the problem for every list out there, and the future codices

It would, but I am attemting to marginalize as few players as possible. Imperial Knight players not withstanding. If LoW are properly balanced its not a problem. I think this serves to fix the biggest problem, being able to take virtually unlimited Wraithknight in a Warhost.

Weapon Profiles
Scatter Laser
Range: 36" Strength: 5 AP: 6 Heavy 4

This fixes nothing other than wounding result, limits to the jetbike squad make more sense.
It was designed to give better heavy weapon options, the existing Scatter was just too good for cost. It was less about EJBs and more about a mono selection for Heavies.

Shuriken
Bladestorm: "When firing a weapon with this special rule, a To wound roll of a 6 is resolved at AP3, but does not wound automatically regardless of toughness."

I agree here helps against MEQ, but still allows terminators to be useful
Good, I felt it was better than Psuedo REnding everywhere.

Replace Weapon Profiles for Distortion Weapons

D-Scythe
Range: Template Strength: 4 AP: 2 Assault 1, Distort

Heavy D-Scythe
Range: 18" Strength: 4 AP AP: 2 Assault 1, Blast, Distort

Wraithcannon
Range: 12" Strength: 10 AP: 2 Assault 1, Distort

D-Cannon
Range: 24 Strength: 10 AP: 2 Heavy 1, Barrage, Blast

WHY they always have had distort and saw very little fielding, they should keep distort
Typo, I'll add it.

Heavy Wraithcannon
Range: 36: Strength: 10 AP: 2 Heavy 1, Distort

Distort: When rolling To Wound against non-vehicle models with this weapon, on a roll of a 6, it wounds automatically regardless of toughness and has the Instant Death Special Rule. Against vehicle models, on a roll of a 6 for armor penetration, it automatically causes a penetrating hit regardless of whether the armor penetration roll was greater than the Armor Value or not.

the 6th rules were fine
This should be virtually identical to the 6th Ed rules. Did I miss something?

Treasures of Vaul
Eldar Jetbike: "A model riding an Eldar jetbike has a 4+ Armour Save and a twin-linked shuriken catapult. Their unit type also changes to Eldar Jetbike (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules)."

limits to the wargear are just fine to tone down jetbikes they always were 3+ armor, they were not a problem until this codex allowed all heavy weapons
This is a limit meant to make them like other EJBs, serves to tone down Farseers and Bikeseer councils, and balances out bikes quite nicely. I considered the 1:3 wargear allotment, but felt this was a more elegant solution that wen combined with the changes to Scatter Lasers has the desired effect. Instead of fixing one unit, these two changes fixed a lot more than just EJBs.


Wraithknight: 300pts
Wargear: Ghostglaive and Scattershield
May exchange Ghostglaive and Scattershield for.... Suncannon and Scattershield: 20pts; Two Heavy Wraithcannons: 40pts
May take up to two of the following in any combination... Scatter Laser: 10pts each; Shuriken Cannon: 10pts each; Scarcannon: 15pts each

When considering you changed the heavy wraith cannon to distort 300 points is fine, again was the heavy wraith cannons a problem in 6th ed codex, nope

Ranged S10 is nothing to sneeze at, and on that durable of a platform its an appropriate cost. 6th vs 7th still sees over a 50% increase in durability, plus added CC ability, plus added optional and additional weaponry. The 6th edition model was incorrectly priced at 240 so with +50% durability, added CC, and added options 340pts is appropriate, most of that cost is in Durability and CC ability. 40pts to go from a straight melee model to slightly less melee and two S10 ranged attacks is reasonable.

Bharring wrote:Stealth Suits probably only need a points drop. Their weapons should be good.

Why is Marker light/Target Lock so expensive on a Fire Warrior sarge, but so cheap on a Stealth Suits sarge?

Also, changes in ML cover-removal (such as -1 cover save per ML spent), or other ML changes are probably out of scope?

I agree about Stealth Suits.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be recosted, no reason for Fire Warrior Sarge upgrades, especially not at 10 points just for +1LD.

I've tossed this idea around before, it definitely could work well and may ultimately be more balanced. I'm on the fence about changing the rule, but its one I have always liked better than 2 for Ignores Cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
5-19-15 Fixed "Distort" Ommission

D-Cannon
Range: 24 Strength: 10 AP: 2 Heavy 1, Distort, Barrage, Blast

Added Dark Eldar! I did my best to make them more than Codex: Blaster/Venom Spam or Codex: Eldar Taxi Service.
I really worked to try and make different kinds of armies and playstyles viable. DE felt like the most one dimensional army out there, I endeavored to change that.

Let me know what you think! Don't expect Blaster/Venom spam to work as well as before, but you can put out good amounts of fire power with a lot more boots on the ground. Venoms and Raiders are pricier, but they are more resilient and have larger transport capacities. Blasters, Dark Lances and most upgrades got cheaper, but require you to put more(less costly) boots on the ground to do it.

Here are a couple examples of how it points out. You'll not put out as must Blaster or Darklance Firepower per Point, but you'll end up with much more boots on the ground and heartier transports to boot.

Blaster Trueborn In Venoms or Raiders
Old 5 Trueborn 55pts +4 Blasters 60pts +Splinter Venom 65pts = 180pts
New 7 Trueborn 63pts +2 Blasters 24pts +Splinter Venom 75pts = 162pts
New 10 Trueborn 90pts +4Blasters 48pts +Raider 70pts = 208pts

Ground Warriors with Dark Lances
Old 20 Warriors 160pts +2 Dark Lances 40 = 200pts
New 20 warriors 140pts +2 Dark Lances 30 = 170pts

Ground Trueborn with Dark Lances
Old 5 Trueborn 55pts +2 Dark Lances 40 = 95pts
New 10 Trueborn 90pts +2 Dark Lances 24 = 114pts
New 20 Trueborn 180pts +4 Dark Lances 48pts = 228pts

Also alleviated pressure in the Heavy Support Slot by letting Ravagers Squadron with two Ravagers.

Looking at DE, it feels like it might have gone too far, passing from minimal touch balancing to redesign.

Venoms with a capacity of 7? Raiders with 15?
Kalabites at 7 minimum?

It might be best if those things could be left unchanged.

Bharring wrote:
Looking at DE, it feels like it might have gone too far, passing from minimal touch balancing to redesign.

Venoms with a capacity of 7? Raiders with 15?
Kalabites at 7 minimum?

It might be best if those things could be left unchanged.

Here is the problem I ran into with Dark Eldar, the codex was written as Codex: Venoms and Blaster Trueborn. The DE book had massive internal and external balance issues that had to be addressed, I will take any suggestions for how I would have addjusted things differently. Out of all the codices, Dark Eldar had the largest internal balance issues and only one externally balanced army design style, this book more than any other required more of a heavy hand because the tweaks that worked for other books, really wouldn't have fixed these issues.

The DE Codex had very few good things in it, and those that were good had to be spammed. If the DE player couldn't field Venoms or Blaster Trueborn, what of use would they be putting on the table? Almost nothing. If DE couldn't spam Blasters or Venoms the book was terrible.


Kabalites and Witches at 7 instead of 5: Both decreased in cost, but increased in minimum squad size.... why?

Kabalite Warriors
40% increase in models and only a 22.5% increase in base cost.
Kabalite Trueborn
40% increase in models and only a 14.5% increase in base cost.
Wyches
40% increase in models and only a 12% increase in base cost.
Bloodbrides
40% increase in models and only a 7.7% increase in base cost.

Before Wyches were absolutely worthless, Bloodbrides were even more worthless and Warriors and Trueborn were only used to get Blasters. Now, Blaster are cheaper, actually costed appropriately, but it is a bit tougher to spam them, you have to put more boots on the ground to do so.

Venoms with a capacity of 7? Raiders with 15?

Venoms had to have 7 if I increased minimum squad size. Raiders at 15 allowed for some more the use of larger squads, for example 10 Wyches in a Raider was 155ts, now 15 Wyches in a Raider is 170pts without any upgrades for anything, and that Raider is now significantly more Durable. 50% more infantry and a more durable transport for 15pts.


The problem with the last two DE codices was can be summed up with this 55pts for Trueborn just to get 60pts in Blasters to put in a 65pts Venom. 180pts just used for Special Weapon and a spammable Venom. Or 105pts for 5 Warriors in a Venom, pretty much just for the Venom. Or just take 65pts Venoms in Fast Attack... etc. The bodies were only used for their Special weapons and for their Transport and were cheap enough to Spam, this is a huge problem, especially for internal balance and needed to be addressed.

This was the most elegant way I could find to improve the internal balance of the DE codex, just decreasing the cost of the less used units wouldn't have done it, as Venom Spam just wasn't going to get shifted, neither were Trueborn Spamming, etc. You are now forced to put more models in play, take a a few less Venoms, and opens up other options for army builds. Yes, this was the biggest codex change, but notice all I did was tweak unit costs, minimum squad sizes, and upgrade costs and drastically improved internal balance while creating more varied and viable army builds. I think external balance is on point as well, but that is a bit tough to guage as this was the most complicated Errata I've created.


I'm open for other suggestions as well and if a better solution that creates better internal balance, more varied lists, and good external balance is proposed I'm all for it.

Perhaps if Venoms are OP, their price should go up?

Perhaps, if BlasterBorn are OP, but other Trueborn need help, the Blaster on Trueborn should go up in price? Perhaps the 3rd/4th could cost more than the 1st/2nd?

Just spitballing ideas.

Bharring wrote:
Perhaps if Venoms are OP, their price should go up?

Perhaps, if BlasterBorn are OP, but other Trueborn need help, the Blaster on Trueborn should go up in price? Perhaps the 3rd/4th could cost more than the 1st/2nd?

Just spitballing ideas.

I thought about this, but if Venoms strictly go up in price external balance suffers. If BlasterBorn go up, then external balance suffers. Sure, we could recost these options to create internal balance, but at the cost of external Balance.

The Venom itself is not OP, its the extremely cheap and easy access to the Venom that is the problem. DE troops aren't good, and only used for cheap access to Venoms, to meet requirements, and sometimes Special Weapons. Trueborn are just Special Weapon platforms.

What my changes did is attempt to preserve External balance while drastically increasing Internal balance. It also opens up more ways to play the army, actually opens up the ways the army was intended to be able to operate, but the combination of dirt cheap units, single minded access to Specials, and must have Transports almost all other options for DE are just too inefficient and poorly balanced Externally that they are non options. This has been the major problem with DE in 5th, 6th, and 7th. Sure, we saw some other things that could be useful, or something that became powerful with BBs, but mostly the Codices suffered greatly and kept being funneled into a single army build.


Sure, you can't do strict Blaster or Venom Spam as well, but what you can do is put a lot more models on the table with lots more options and available choices and the vehicles you put down are more resilient as well. Enough so that external balance should be maintained around the right point while internal balance drastically improves.

It boiled down to troops were too cheap yet not worth their points, but had access to lots of necessary Specials, and their transports were too good and too readily available. So you minimized infantry investment, maximized expensive weapon investment, and maximized transport investment. That is balanced, far from it, even if the end result could compete at approximately the right level. Now troops are worth their points, but cost you only marginally more in a total investment Specials are cheaper but harder to gain access to in some ways while easier in other less used options, and Transports are still great, just less spammable. All good things IMO.

Keep the discussion going.

Are you thinking of bringing back any of the old DE characters?

Also what made you keep the venom blade in the "weapons of torture" section instead of putting it in the "melee weapons"?

Also also, many people might think it weird to have numbers of 7 or 15 for transport capacity but honestly they're just numbers, people will get over themselves eventually. Now I'll just have to see if my friends will be willing to let me try this out.

Thank you for everything you're doing Zagman. I presume after you're finished with everything GW might just have to add a fifth Chaos God

Godspeed.

 Barrywise wrote:
Are you thinking of bringing back any of the old DE characters?

Also what made you keep the venom blade in the "weapons of torture" section instead of putting it in the "melee weapons"?

Also also, many people might think it weird to have numbers of 7 or 15 for transport capacity but honestly they're just numbers, people will get over themselves eventually. Now I'll just have to see if my friends will be willing to let me try this out.

Thank you for everything you're doing Zagman. I presume after you're finished with everything GW might just have to add a fifth Chaos God

Godspeed.

As much as I would love to readd characters, that goes beyond the scope of this Errata. I'm trying to keep as light of a touch as possible.

I didn't move from Weapons of Torture to Melee Weapons because there was a pressing balance issue with the classification. Sure, it would have been nice to have more options, but in this case it isn't really necessary.


I take it you like the Dark Eldar Errata? If you can find people to let you try it out, or better yet use the Errata for their army as well the feedback will be invaluable.

I play mostly aspect hosts so I'll put my pennies towards that stuff mainly

Dive avengers
All the exarch upgrades are cheaper, awsome, but what about the twin linked option (I use it the most mainly because it looks badass) its not really super useful for a bs 5(6 with formation) model, perhaps it should be cheaper. Or go back to the 5th ed Dex where it simply doubled the amount of shots exarchs could make. The same argument also apples to WS exarchs as well.

Autarchs - they always feel so useless and bland compared to farseers, I've really only used them for reserves or now a days with wings and a banshee mask to tie up squads from 20 inches off. Power weapons are overvalued yes, but I still fail to see one being used as they should be, front line commanders like SM captains are and that's a shame to me.

Bladestorm- I like the changes, means we need to get ap2 in our lists now (esp assuming you'll heavily discount termites) and loosing the auto wound doesn't really matter as 6s wound up to tough 8 anyway so its w/e

Everything else looks fine to me, I'd play by those rules with bells on if it ment my space elves would stop attracting the evil eye.

Keep up the fine work sir.

What was the reasoning on The Talos and Chronos getting fleet?

Also is a beast master not needed in the beast pack anymore?

Edit: here's some more experienced and professional Dark Eldar thoughts: http://www.thedarkcity.net/t12270-zagman-s-balance-errata

Reducing the cost of Demi-Klaives to 5pts isn't effective because as Demi-klaives stand they are effectively an expensive downgrade on regular Klaives. In other words, if you do the math, you'll see there are basically no situations when +1A and AP3 is a better option than the regular +1S. A better change would be to just make them a flat +1A upgrade to regular Klaives and give them an appropriate points cost.

Barrywise wrote:What was the reasoning on The Talos and Chronos getting fleet?

Also is a beast master not needed in the beast pack anymore?

Edit: here's some more experienced and professional Dark Eldar thoughts: http://www.thedarkcity.net/t12270-zagman-s-balance-errata

Chronos is too slow to keep up with the rest of the army. Both are too slow to really keep up with the rest of the DE. Fleet give them an edge and niche in quickness they need, it's also fitting with the DE infantry.

Thanks for the link, the mentioned rewrite is way too massive and out of scope for this project. Some of the criticism isn't terrible good, one guy didn't read any of it. I'd love feedback from the player that says he did well with unique DE builds, I've never seen it competitively... And I'll be the first to admit they aren't my speciality. And everyone gripes about balance, but wants round numbers and spam able units.

Steveh15 wrote:Reducing the cost of Demi-Klaives to 5pts isn't effective because as Demi-klaives stand they are effectively an expensive downgrade on regular Klaives. In other words, if you do the math, you'll see there are basically no situations when +1A and AP3 is a better option than the regular +1S. A better change would be to just make them a flat +1A upgrade to regular Klaives and give them an appropriate points cost.

Technically they are better against T6 3+ AS. Also only equivalent against GEQ. Not really worth it, but is it necessary to change.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Homeskillet wrote:OK, I've had a little time to digest the DE stuff. Those are fairly massive changes, and I get why you made them. Still not sure whether I like the mandatory larger squads or not, but I'd certainly play around with it and see how it shakes out on the table top. I just personally look at the DE as the ultimate MSU army, and should excel at zipping across the board in smaller units, dealing the "death of a thousand cuts". My only suggested changes are:

1. Make Drazhar cheaper still. even at 170 nobody would play him, unfortunately. He should really be a 130-150 pt melee beatstick due to the limited way in which he can be used (i.e. with Incubi)

2. Maybe allow Warriors to take a Heavy weapon for every 6 guys, so they can get 3 in a blob squad? May give more reason for people to do evil footdar? The DE heavy weapons really aren't super devastating as it is, being Splinter Cannons and Dark Lances.

3. Allow Pain Engines to be taken IN ANY COMBINATION. Boom, blew yo' mind. Even with fleet, they are slow, tough, but only mildly survivable monsters. Allowing each Pain Engine squad to have the FNP buff brings them up a huge notch, and supports the rest of the army well by being able to spread the FNP love. With that change, it would make more sense to keep the Spirit Probe expensive, codex price.

Thanks buddy.

I think, even with the larger mandatory squad sizes they aren't much more expensive and still pull off extremes MSU in effectively the same way. 48 vs 40pts for a troop isn't a cost prohibitive increase.

1. I agree, I didn't want to be too drastic, 130-150 is probably appropriate.
2. More Heavies in the Warriors would be good. They could be Special or Heavy as well as an option. Even four Dark Lances in 20 Warriors isn't crazy. Costs what 200pts for four Lances, it'd definitely be a new style! But, three is probably the sweet spot.
3. Definitely. I had the same though, mixed squads would be excellent. I could see 2 Talos and a Chonos charging up the field.

Keep the feedback coming, and let's put those DE on the table.

 Zagman wrote:
Thanks for the link, the mentioned rewrite is way too massive and out of scope for this project. Some of the criticism isn't terrible good, one guy didn't read any of it. I'd love feedback from the player that says he did well with unique DE builds, I've never seen it competitively... And I'll be the first to admit they aren't my speciality. And everyone gripes about balance, but wants round numbers and spam able units.

Yeah, I found their respond to be very...Dark Eldar-esque.

any idea on how to improve hellions? almost no one uses them.

 Barrywise wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
Thanks for the link, the mentioned rewrite is way too massive and out of scope for this project. Some of the criticism isn't terrible good, one guy didn't read any of it. I'd love feedback from the player that says he did well with unique DE builds, I've never seen it competitively... And I'll be the first to admit they aren't my speciality. And everyone gripes about balance, but wants round numbers and spam able units.

Yeah, I found their respond to be very...Dark Eldar-esque.

any idea on how to improve hellions? almost no one uses them.

What killed me was that I also made any potential non blaster venom spam armies better, haha.

I thought about a points drop for Hellions, 1-2 ppm, I don't want to go crazy, just make them balanced. Cheaper Seargent and weapon upgrades makes them an ok harassment unit. Putting them on the table near a Chronos for 4+ FNP is solid. Can't reinvent the wheel,must small changes.

Suggestions?

I was thinking along the same lines in a point drop but that wouldn't really fix their problem. Grenades isn't an option. Not fluffy and usually people don't take them because they die so easily.
Toughness increase -no
Armor save increase- no

I guess they're fine as is. If you're gonna use them then you'll have to know their limitations, standard Dark Eldar play style.

 Barrywise wrote:
I was thinking along the same lines in a point drop but that wouldn't really fix their problem. Grenades isn't an option. Not fluffy and usually people don't take them because they die so easily.
Toughness increase -no
Armor save increase- no

I guess they're fine as is. If you're gonna use them then you'll have to know their limitations, standard Dark Eldar play style.

Yeah, they are just one of those units. Will problem drop them by a point, at least Splinter Pods are kind of useful.

5-26-15 Changed To

Hellions: 60pts, 12pts/model
One model may be upgraded to a Helliarch... 5pts
The Helliarch may replace their Hellglaive with one of the following... Splinter Pistol and Powersword: 5pts; Splinter Pistol and Stunclaw: 10pts; Splinter Pistol and Agoniser: 10pts;

5-26-15 Change To

Pain Engine Squad
A Pain Engine Squad consists of 1-3 Talos and Chronos Pain Engines in any combination
Talos: 100pts
Special Rules: Add Fleet

Chronos: 90pts
Special Rules: Add Fleet
Any model may take one of the following... Spirit Probe: 20pts/model; Spirit Vortex: 20pts/model

Some more responses on the link from earlier if you're interested.

 Barrywise wrote:
Some more responses on the link from earlier if you're interested.

Thanks for pointing me back to that thread. Its quite a bit of negative feedback.

I really love how I am accused of this massive failure to understand the Dark Eldar when virtually every bit of negative feedback is pointed at how I am lowing their ability to spam Blasters, Dark Lances, Splinter Cannons, Venoms, and Raiders. I'm accused of wanting to nerf DE Anti Tank when I made Ravagers 10pts cheaper, allowed twice as many to be fielded, made Dark Lances cheaper, made Blasters cheaper, affordable Blast Pistols, made Splinter Cannons cheaper, and made most infantry cheaper. Its like I might have recognized my changes reduced DEs most common and spammable forms of AT and made lots of smaller changes to compensate. I'm accused of making vehicles worse by making them more expensive, but the bonus durability from having both Flickerfields and Nightshields on both Raiders and Venoms stock at a discount is ignored. I'm accused of making Warriors and Trueborn worse because they cost more, despite them all getting cheaper and putting more boots on the ground.

I put out the premise of trying to break the DE steroetype of being only spam Heavies in as many Venoms(Maybe Raiders) as possible, and when I make changes I'm accused of some great travesty when any change reduces their ability to spam Heavy weapons. And when I'm accused of not understanding all the other viable DE builds a person supplies weak experiential evidence about a local league and their build isn't even using core DE, but a mixed Freakshow.

Reading that thread makes me feel like the vast majority missed the point of my Balance Errata. They seem to be completely unaware of the concept of internal balance, focused solely on buffing to reach external balance focused around the current meta. They seem to be completely unaware that the best and most powerful units/builds in every Codex I've done have been nerfed in some way and yet when that applied to DE spamming of Venoms and Special weapons it is somehow unfair. None of them investigated far enough to realize that the changes have destroyed the Grav Stars, nerfed the Decurion, balanced the Wraithknight, fixed the Scatterbikes, nerfed the Buffcommander, etc etc.

Its amazing the arguments aimed at defending the status quo. There was no mention of the positive changes in the codex to any of the myriad of units that weren't used in Spam lists. I'm accused of not understanding the DE dex at all, and based on most of those responses I think I understand it quite well. Balance has to be aimed at the most common/powerful/spammed/broken units as well as the overcosted/unused/inefficient/terrible units bringing everything towards balance. When the book as a standalone has only one really viable build that is a sign of terrible internal balance even if that one list reaches acceptable external balance. We've seen that over the years as codices age ie 5th Ed Necrons had optoins that were just too good and anything but those spammed units Wraiths, Destroyer Lords, Night Scythes and Annihilation barges were pretty much worthless barring a couple of minor exceptions yet the external balance was powerful and WraithwingTeslaCrons was a powerful and common list.

The end result is pretty simple, I reduced the most common and most powerful build in DE while simultaneously helping all of the ugly stepchild units. Even the reduction to spam resulted in more boots on the ground and cheaper less spammable options to compensate. More viable builds of moderate to good power become available. The real question is was enough done or too much done to reach internal balance and whether the external balance would be comparable to my other Errata.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added some of the changes me and Homeskillet were discussing.

5-27-15 Changed To

Drazhar: 150pts

5-27-15 Changed

Kalabite Warriors: 49pts, 7pts/model
Units Composition: 7 Kabalite Warriors
May include up to thirteen additional Kabalite Warriors... 7pts/model
May upgrade all Kabalite Warriors to Kabalite Trueborn, changing the unit's Battlefield Rold to Elites... 2pts/model
One Kabalite Warrior may be upgraded to a Sybarite: 5pts
One Kabalite Truebore may be upgraaded to a Dracon: 5pts
The Sybarite or Dracon may replace their splinter rifle with one of the following... Blast Pistol: 7pts
One Kabalite Warrior for every five models may take an item from the Special Weapons list.
One Kabalite Warrior for every five models may take an item from the Heavy Weapons list.
Up to two Kabalite Trueborn fore every five models may take items from the Special Weapons list.
One Kabalite Trueborn for every five models may take items from the Heavy Weapons list.

Also, to anyone looking at these Balance Errata the goal was to use the lightest hand as possible using points as the primary mechanism of change, using weapon profile changes as well as Unit Composition more sparingly. Altering model stats even more sparingly, and lastly rewriting or adding new rules only when absolutely necessary.

I see your still at this game, Zagman. I credit you that you've stuck by this project and put a lot of effort into it. You even seem to have some decent ideas.

However, the bad far outweigh the good. While I don't play Dark Eldar (Yet!), The Dark City are the recognized experts at playing them.

Here are some choice quotes from their reaction to your errata:

Squidmaster: With respect, most of this erratta seems to be about making things cheaper (with the exception of Warriors) without actually improving anything. It doesn't address any balance issues or fix borken/useless units, which is what I would want from an erratta.

Calyptra: I not only think he's wrong about that, I think he's so wrong that I think he fundamentally misunderstands Dark Eldar.

The Shredder: Numbers like 12 and 7 make it a massive pain to build an army to an exact figure like 1500pts. Simple as that.

JackKnife01: This just...no. No....just no......he has completely missed the other strategies. Numbers ofbstartong doesn't bother me, unless they made them more expensive. Venom spam is not the only way to go. My list has done well.

CurstAlchemist: I agree with those that think he hates our anti-vehicle. These changes heavily reduce our ability to field DL weapons while forcing us to increase the number of infantry with their low armor saves. The increase in cost for Raiders and base line Kabalite warriors means we can field less Raider Dark Lances. The reduction in vehicles means the added protection is being used against more focused fire do to fewer vehicles on the field.

Trueborn are more expensive to field and have the number of special and heavy weapons they can carry cut in half. Scourges also lose half of their special/heavy weapons further reducing the number of anti-vehicle weapons.

Giving us the ability to field 2 ravagers in a unit might seem like he is try to help us make up for the loss so that we aren't taking up 2 heavy slots but it also means Ravagers are easier to nullify their shooting on by forcing a jink on a unit instead of doing it to two different targets.

The point value shifting seems, to me, to be a smoke screen to conceal his desire to limit the number of targets we can field while inceasing the unit sizes and reduction of the number of anti-vehicle weapons we can take or use effectively during the game.

Leninade:Reducing the amount of vehicles a Dark Eldar army can field is a nonstarter, just no. What's more is that the humble raider is already twice the cost of its more heavily armored marine equivalent. The reason Dark Eldar players field so many vehicles is because we're forced to make do, not because they're so much better than anyone else's vehicles. A lascannon spam list where every squad takes a transport would function similarly to a dark lance spam list. You don't typically see lascannon spam because they're simply not that good. I don't see how revisions that nerf one of the weaker books and attack the inherent design of the faction could be a good idea.

These responses state it better than I can. As far as internal balance goes, there's more to it than shifting points costs around. There is much more to Dark Eldar than simply spamming Venoms and Blasterborn (and that was last codex). It's a matter of synergy and how units work together, and you seem to have misunderstood it with Dark Eldar.

It was also admitted in that thread that you have never played with Dark Eldar, only against them. I have to ask: What are you doing FAQing Dark Eldar and changing their codex, when you yourself don't play them.

I don't want to sound too harsh. I'm sure that your approach would do wonders for the armies you play. Stick to those armies, and leave the space elves alone.

And before you accuse me of not doing anything, I have my own guide for how Eldar can be brought down to something resembling balance with their current codex: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/645031.page

You might notice that I managed to pull that off before the codex even came out. That's how obvious the changes are.

TL;DR you don't know what you're doing when it comes to Eldar and Dark Eldar. Leave it to people who play those armies to balance them out.

I'm still waiting for you to offer quality suggestions. You are quick to criticize but offer nothing of substance. I've played Eldar across multiple editions.

Why if I was writing an Errata for all armies would I errata DE?? Well, I'm Errating all armies... Have you missed where I've repeatedly asked for feedback and suggestions from those more experienced? People are quick to criticize but don't seem to be willing to offer constructive criticism or useful feedback.

They may be the experts on Dark Eldar, but not a one of them has posted here or in that thread with any constructive criticism. Everything I Addressed in the previous post has merit. They keep speaking of this myriad of other strategies that I'm missing, yet how many have they put forward? I get it, Freakshow... Keep them coming, I happened to be aware of that one. How have my changes failed to benefit those strategies? How could a light touch be employed to improve them?

Everyone has also missed the part about wanting to use a light tough, using point costs as the primary change to codices. Using weapon and unit composition changes more sparingly. Changing direct stats even more sparingly. And lastly changing adding or rewriting rules only when necessary. I'm not attempting to rewrite the DE codex, but tweak it towards better balance internally and externally. It won't be perfect, it's a poorly written codex and I'm working under "light touch" constraints.

I am asking, how do I balance DE with a light tough to achieve the goals of this project? I'm receptive to constructive feedback and willing to make changes.

You've been quick to criticize, yet have not formulated very good arguments. You've made statements as fact, have used few examples, and stopped responding to counter arguments. For instance, why Scatter Lasers became S5 and Baldestorm became AP3 to improve internal balance, improve external balance, and create an actual choice.

As far as DE is concerned, I'm welcoming feedback, but blanket criticism in a thread on a totally different forum where none of the posters care to elaborate or even post here is of little use. I've read those responses and see little value in them, not a one includes anything of use, or are their responses taken in context of the other Errata. Their baseline for balance is going to be way off.

I'm still sitting here waiting for constructive feedback. I'd love for an experienced DE player to step in and explain the myriad of viable DE builds and synergies I've missed. I've not seen them competitively. Hell, I've asked for them to be pointed out. So far the overwhelming answer has been anger at Vehicles are more expensive, I apparently hate Blasters and Lances despite making them cheaper, and that I understand nothing about the codex. I'd love for someone to explain how I worsened internal balance. I'd love for someone to tell me how I've missed the mark externally compared to my other errata. I'd love for someone to tell me what I've broken in the errata, what is too good, what is horrible, etc. I've repeatedly asked for that feedback. And I've gotten little. Blanket attacks with nothing constructive aren't helpful.

And who are you to criticize? You don't play DE? Have anything besides an appeal to authority? You've mentioned SM Errata problems... Yet never elaborated on them. I'd be happy to have the discussion in the relevant thread. Your Eldar fix addressed some of the big things, but did it reall address internal balance? External balance? Besides fixing the utterly broken and telling players to play nice?

If I've done such a terrible job, I'd like to know how this Errata worsened Internal and External Balance?

 Zagman wrote:
I'm still waiting for you to offer quality suggestions. You are quick to criticize but offer nothing of substance. I've played Eldar across multiple editions.

Did you not read the thread I linked to? I have offered "quality" i.e. obvious changes in both this thread and in other threads.

Why if I was writing an Errata for all armies would I errata DE?? Well, I'm Errating all armies... Have you missed where I've repeatedly asked for feedback and suggestions from those more experienced? People are quick to criticize but don't seem to be willing to offer constructive criticism or useful feedback.

I'll give you a small hint: if people aren't responding en masse, then either your thread is absolutely brilliant or absolutely terrible. You can guess what my opinion is. I'm only here to point out the flaws because nobody else seems to have bothered to care.

They may be the experts on Dark Eldar, but not a one of them has posted here or in that thread with any constructive criticism. Everything I Addressed in the previous post has merit. They keep speaking of this myriad of other strategies that I'm missing, yet how many have they put forward? I get it, Freakshow... Keep them coming, I happened to be aware of that one. How have my changes failed to benefit those strategies? How could a light touch be employed to improve them?

There's a reason I copypasted their quotes here; they've decided not to touch your errata with a ten foot barge pole. Perhaps, if you actually played Dark Eldar, you would know more about their lists construction. Funnily enough, a dirty little secret is that Wyches can be effective, just not on their own. There are Coven lists as well, which you haven't bothered to address. Your "light touch" would neuter most of the Faction's ability to handle tanks/vehicles.

Everyone has also missed the part about wanting to use a light tough, using point costs as the primary change to codices. Using weapon and unit composition changes more sparingly. Changing direct stats even more sparingly. And lastly changing adding or rewriting rules only when necessary. I'm not attempting to rewrite the DE codex, but tweak it towards better balance internally and externally. It won't be perfect, it's a poorly written codex and I'm working under "light touch" constraints.

I am asking, how do I balance DE with a light tough to achieve the goals of this project? I'm receptive to constructive feedback and willing to make changes.

Changing points costs is not a light touch. Changing points costs can alter the very structure of an army. For example, with Kabalites going to 7 minimum at 49 points, it's better to take 5 Wyches at 50 points because Wyches are, believe it or not, better than Kabalites when put on the same points level. You have also make already expensive skimmers more expensive, ensuring that the overall cost of extremely fragile and unsurvivable units goes up. Tweaking points costs amounts to changing the way the army works, and you don't seem to understand that.

You've been quick to criticize, yet have not formulated very good arguments. You've made statements as fact, have used few examples, and stopped responding to counter arguments. For instance, why Scatter Lasers became S5 and Baldestorm became AP3 to improve internal balance, improve external balance, and create an actual choice.

As far as DE is concerned, I'm welcoming feedback, but blanket criticism in a thread on a totally different forum where none of the posters care to elaborate or even post here is of little use. I've read those responses and see little value in them, not a one includes anything of use, or are their responses taken in context of the other Errata. Their baseline for balance is going to be way off.

The reason I stopped responding was that I frankly had better things to do than try to walk through how bad these erratas are. Your changes don't create better balance or improve choice, they only make different choices obvious. For example, with your change to Bladestorm and Scatter Lasers, the Starcannon or stock Shuriken Cannon is now simply better in every circumstance. A lot of what I've been arguing is blatantly obvious; I'm just pointing out what you are failing to see.

I'm still sitting here waiting for constructive feedback. I'd love for an experienced DE player to step in and explain the myriad of viable DE builds and synergies I've missed. I've not seen them competitively. Hell, I've asked for them to be pointed out. So far the overwhelming answer has been anger at Vehicles are more expensive, I apparently hate Blasters and Lances despite making them cheaper, and that I understand nothing about the codex. I'd love for someone to explain how I worsened internal balance. I'd love for someone to tell me how I've missed the mark externally compared to my other errata. I'd love for someone to tell me what I've broken in the errata, what is too good, what is horrible, etc. I've repeatedly asked for that feedback. And I've gotten little. Blanket attacks with nothing constructive aren't helpful.

And who are you to criticize? You don't play DE? Have anything besides an appeal to authority? You've mentioned SM Errata problems... Yet never elaborated on them. I'd be happy to have the discussion in the relevant thread. Your Eldar fix addressed some of the big things, but did it reall address internal balance? External balance? Besides fixing the utterly broken and telling players to play nice?

If I've done such a terrible job, I'd like to know how this Errata worsened Internal and External Balance?

Sometimes the most constructive piece of criticism you can receive is when to simply stop, throw out what you've done so far, and start anew.

Hate to break it to you: that was the experienced Dark Eldar players' feedback. You aren't going to get somebody to explain in depth how to play one of the hardest armies in 40k to you by just asking on an internet forum. Especially not when you've some in with your own preconceived notions about how the army is "supposed" to play.

While I don't play Dark Eldar, I have done something that you apparently haven't: actually read through the codex enough times to get an understanding of how the army plays on the tabletop and how the various units work together.

This errata is simply Codex: -1. You haven't done anything to fix the fundamental problems of the army: underpowered Wyches, useless Hellions, Pain Engines being useless outside of Coven formations, the total unviability of any sort of footslogging units, and a disconnect between the part of the army that wants to chop things to pieces and the part that wants to shoot everything dead.

Warhammer 40k is a fundamentally imbalanced game. Internal balance in an army isn't about taking everything down in power level, it's about building everything up to the same standard of power within the army. All your errata would do is put Dark Eldar at the same level as CSM, Orks, and Dark Angels. Your Eldar errata fails to recognize how internally balanced most of the units already are, and simply brings everything down to the same level of sub-optimal usability.

I haven't taken to your other erratas because I don't play those armies, so I'm not in a position to comment on them. They have just as many problems as these erratas. because you insist on using points values as the only method of "balancing" armies.

The touch in your errattas are certainly becoming heavier handed.

Bharring wrote:
The touch in your errattas are certainly becoming heavier handed.

DE definitely was more heavier handed than I would of liked. I am gladly accepting suggestions for how to balance them internally an externally with a minimum amount of change. Nothing I did in my rough draft needs to be set in stone. Anything that accomplishes the same goal in a better fashion will be well received.

Any suggestions?

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
I'm still waiting for you to offer quality suggestions. You are quick to criticize but offer nothing of substance. I've played Eldar across multiple editions.

Did you not read the thread I linked to? I have offered "quality" i.e. obvious changes in both this thread and in other threads.

By quality changes you mean just don't take anything with a Dcannon and if you take Jetbikes, 1 per 3 max. That really doesn't amount to anything usable. It certainly doesn't help the subpar units nor does it create balanced choices. Intentionally choosing suboptimal choices does not make a useful change.

Why if I was writing an Errata for all armies would I errata DE?? Well, I'm Errating all armies... Have you missed where I've repeatedly asked for feedback and suggestions from those more experienced? People are quick to criticize but don't seem to be willing to offer constructive criticism or useful feedback.

I'll give you a small hint: if people aren't responding en masse, then either your thread is absolutely brilliant or absolutely terrible. You can guess what my opinion is. I'm only here to point out the flaws because nobody else seems to have bothered to care.

You have a very aggressive and inflammatory posting style. I still welcome you to contribute in a civil and constructive manner. So far passive aggressive or outright rude comments are all you've contributed.

They may be the experts on Dark Eldar, but not a one of them has posted here or in that thread with any constructive criticism. Everything I Addressed in the previous post has merit. They keep speaking of this myriad of other strategies that I'm missing, yet how many have they put forward? I get it, Freakshow... Keep them coming, I happened to be aware of that one. How have my changes failed to benefit those strategies? How could a light touch be employed to improve them?

There's a reason I copypasted their quotes here; they've decided not to touch your errata with a ten foot barge pole. Perhaps, if you actually played Dark Eldar, you would know more about their lists construction. Funnily enough, a dirty little secret is that Wyches can be effective, just not on their own. There are Coven lists as well, which you haven't bothered to address. Your "light touch" would neuter most of the Faction's ability to handle tanks/vehicles.

I did not address Covens at that point in time, they are a supplement that would be addressed at one point in time. Wyches are overcosted for what they do, in every list I've looked at or experience I've had I have not sceen them be effective. Pray tell. Nuetered all AT.... Cheaper Blasters, Cheaper Darklances, Blast Pistols as a viable upgrade... additional weapon selections for units... cheaper Ravagers with better optional upgrades and the ability to Squadron... The only thing I did that "nuetered" is reduced the spamming of heavy weapons on two Squads, of which require more less costly bodies to field the same amount. Upgraded Transports also makes it possible to filed those units. Yes the Venom and Raider got more expensive, but they got significantly more durable at a discount. 15pts for both Flickerfields and Nightshields on Raiders and 10pts for Night Shields on Venoms with upgraded transport capacity for both. I thought that was a very fair as Nightshields alone are a 33% increase in Jinking durability and Flickerfields are a 50% increase in durability when not Jinking. This was done in way meant to compensate for the lowered abilty to Spam them and Specails.

I'd be happy if any experienced DE player submitted a Balance Errata aimed at the same relative power level of the other errata. I'd welcome it and defer on much of what I did.

Everyone has also missed the part about wanting to use a light tough, using point costs as the primary change to codices. Using weapon and unit composition changes more sparingly. Changing direct stats even more sparingly. And lastly changing adding or rewriting rules only when necessary. I'm not attempting to rewrite the DE codex, but tweak it towards better balance internally and externally. It won't be perfect, it's a poorly written codex and I'm working under "light touch" constraints.

I am asking, how do I balance DE with a light tough to achieve the goals of this project? I'm receptive to constructive feedback and willing to make changes.

Changing points costs is not a light touch. Changing points costs can alter the very structure of an army. For example, with Kabalites going to 7 minimum at 49 points, it's better to take 5 Wyches at 50 points because Wyches are, believe it or not, better than Kabalites when put on the same points level. You have also make already expensive skimmers more expensive, ensuring that the overall cost of extremely fragile and unsurvivable units goes up. Tweaking points costs amounts to changing the way the army works, and you don't seem to understand that.

Changing points costs is the simplest way to re-balance choices. The goal was to make playing the army ie rules and unit capabilities to be unchanged where the Errata is used at Army construction instead of having to constantly refer to the Errata to play the army. This was my approach, and given that premis I attempted to make it work. Everything can be balanced to a large degree by points costs, as it is the metric we are given to assess worth of a unit. Unsurvivability of a unit goes up, by reducing the loss per model and making those skimmers significantly more durable compared to their cost. That is the opposite of what you just said. Raiders with Nightshields and Flickerfields for 15pts is significantly more durable than the 27% increase in cost would indicate. +33% while Jinking, +50% when not jinking in the open. The only time it is not more durable is when it has a 5+ or better Cover save. Now, if you are suggesting those upgrades aren't worth 15pts on a Raider and should have increased cost by 10pts ie 18% instead I'd be listening as I was debating between those two values for the unit. I tried to make them more durable for their cost, so spamming them to maximize target saturation wasn't as necessary. Did I overshoot the mark? I am well aware tweaking points can change the way an army works, the goal was to tweak them in a way that aided internal and external balance.

You've been quick to criticize, yet have not formulated very good arguments. You've made statements as fact, have used few examples, and stopped responding to counter arguments. For instance, why Scatter Lasers became S5 and Baldestorm became AP3 to improve internal balance, improve external balance, and create an actual choice.

As far as DE is concerned, I'm welcoming feedback, but blanket criticism in a thread on a totally different forum where none of the posters care to elaborate or even post here is of little use. I've read those responses and see little value in them, not a one includes anything of use, or are their responses taken in context of the other Errata. Their baseline for balance is going to be way off.

The reason I stopped responding was that I frankly had better things to do than try to walk through how bad these erratas are. Your changes don't create better balance or improve choice, they only make different choices obvious. For example, with your change to Bladestorm and Scatter Lasers, the Starcannon or stock Shuriken Cannon is now simply better in every circumstance. A lot of what I've been arguing is blatantly obvious; I'm just pointing out what you are failing to see.

Here you go again, making blanket claims as if your work is law sprinkled with passive aggressive tone and direct insults. Shuriken Cannon is now simply better?? Really, I did quite a bit of math backed up with logical application of experience and it disagrees with you. Or did you skip over the damage vs targets data that I provided? The end result is a more equal choice between the three. Each has a role, and all are better balanced against each other than before. Blantanly obvious, well if it is so obvious point it out, I'm pretty quick and have played this game for a long time and have played most of the armies, at pretty competitive levels at times, I'll catch on.

I'm still sitting here waiting for constructive feedback. I'd love for an experienced DE player to step in and explain the myriad of viable DE builds and synergies I've missed. I've not seen them competitively. Hell, I've asked for them to be pointed out. So far the overwhelming answer has been anger at Vehicles are more expensive, I apparently hate Blasters and Lances despite making them cheaper, and that I understand nothing about the codex. I'd love for someone to explain how I worsened internal balance. I'd love for someone to tell me how I've missed the mark externally compared to my other errata. I'd love for someone to tell me what I've broken in the errata, what is too good, what is horrible, etc. I've repeatedly asked for that feedback. And I've gotten little. Blanket attacks with nothing constructive aren't helpful.

And who are you to criticize? You don't play DE? Have anything besides an appeal to authority? You've mentioned SM Errata problems... Yet never elaborated on them. I'd be happy to have the discussion in the relevant thread. Your Eldar fix addressed some of the big things, but did it reall address internal balance? External balance? Besides fixing the utterly broken and telling players to play nice?

If I've done such a terrible job, I'd like to know how this Errata worsened Internal and External Balance?

Sometimes the most constructive piece of criticism you can receive is when to simply stop, throw out what you've done so far, and start anew.

Then offer a suggest of what the new framework should look like. You've yet to put forth a single suggestion.

Hate to break it to you: that was the experienced Dark Eldar players' feedback. You aren't going to get somebody to explain in depth how to play one of the hardest armies in 40k to you by just asking on an internet forum. Especially not when you've some in with your own preconceived notions about how the army is "supposed" to play.

My preconceived notions are based upon how I've seen the army play, how I see people construct those armies, and what I read about those armies from people to play them. And the overwhelming negative feedback which affected my view of how the army plays was spot on. People were pissed they couldn't spam heavies in certain units and spamming vehicles was a touch harder. There were significant cost drops or allowing larger units sizes across other units meant to make those units more viable. Outside of the Freakshow, I am at a loss how to play even semeicompettive DE without playing by my preconcieved notions.

While I don't play Dark Eldar, I have done something that you apparently haven't: actually read through the codex enough times to get an understanding of how the army plays on the tabletop and how the various units work together.

I've read through it a number of times as well as well as read tacticas put out on the different units by multiple people as well as looked at commonly constructed lists. And how do units work together that have been completely ruined by my Errata? I'd love to hear just two or three examples.

This errata is simply Codex: -1. You haven't done anything to fix the fundamental problems of the army: underpowered Wyches, useless Hellions, Pain Engines being useless outside of Coven formations, the total unviability of any sort of footslogging units, and a disconnect between the part of the army that wants to chop things to pieces and the part that wants to shoot everything dead.

It is not Codex -1. Quite a bit was buffed through either cost decreases, cheaper wargear options, more numerous upgrade opportunities, the ability to take squads, or receiving options for or built in flickerfields and nightshields. Which are now cheaper, can be fielded 15strong with transport, have one melee upgrade per three models at a cheaper cost, Hellions got a bit cheaper and cheaper upgrades, Pain engines are cheaper, can be be taken as mixed squads and gained Fleet to increase their ability to cross the table as being to slow and too expensive and taking up a Heavy slot needed for Ravagers were their big problems. Cheaper and more numberous Chronos in addition to cheaper footslogging troops and more heavy optiosn for said troops seem to help. Yes, there is a disconnect between the shooty and choppy bits, and how may I ask can that easily be rectified?

Warhammer 40k is a fundamentally imbalanced game. Internal balance in an army isn't about taking everything down in power level, it's about building everything up to the same standard of power within the army. All your errata would do is put Dark Eldar at the same level as CSM, Orks, and Dark Angels. Your Eldar errata fails to recognize how internally balanced most of the units already are, and simply brings everything down to the same level of sub-optimal usability.

Yes, there is fundamental imbalance, but relative balance ie using points to pay for a unit's ability to affect the game is possible. It is why we have points costs to begin with, 2000pts of one army should be roughly equal to 2000pts of another army with skill and list synergy being the biggest factors in power on the table. If you disagree with this, why use point values at all? The goal was to approach a roughly equal power level, one that was around or slightly higher than the first half dozen 7th edition codices. The goal wasn't to bring DE up to Eldar, but to buff DE where they needed it, curb their most abusive spam while maintaining the relative power of the codex and bringing the other codice in line. My Eldar codex leave quite a few of the internally blaanced units alone with only very minor changes, usually to exarch wargear. It was the clearly undercosted/overpowered units that got addressed ie Anything with a Dweapon, Scatterbikes, Farseers, Warp Spiders etc and to buff up the clear losers in the codex ie Wraithlords, Shining Spears, Storm Guardians etc. Tell me how I ruined internal balance? Which of those units was internally and externally balanced that no longer is. Of course Eldar as a book needed to come down, just as my Errata for CSM and Orks has boosted them up towards that same relative point. If you take each book that I've Errated and take their most competitive builds they should all have been taken down a notch or two, increased in cost so you'll have to sacrifice something or in some cases just no longer be possible, while if you too a list of all the terrible units you should find that they have better more cost effective options and you'll find yourself with a surplus of points left over to purchase more units. One of the tests I was doing was looking at lists in the army list section and applying the Errata, universally anything labeled competitive cost more, had it capabilities reduced, or was no longer possible, while the lists marked as casual found themselves with additional points to spend. That has been one of the litmus tests I have been using

I haven't taken to your other erratas because I don't play those armies, so I'm not in a position to comment on them. They have just as many problems as these erratas. because you insist on using points values as the only method of "balancing" armies.

Your biggest gripe seems to be using Points as the metric to affect balance. What is the better method? Especially one that could be easily applied. These Errata have little effect beyond the list building stage, it is why I wanted to alter rules as little as possible and keep the changes centered around points and sometimes unit composition. What is the better way, especially one that won't require someone to constantly be consulting the Errata during their game?

See the Blue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After running the math I realized that by giving Flickerfields and Nightshield to both Venoms and Raiders increased durability but not significantly enough to warrant the full increase in cost. +50% durability with Flickerfield and +33% Durability with Nighshields does not take into affect natural 5+ or even 4+ cover saves which rapidly degrades the added bonus to durability. A +27% and +18% increase in cost for Raiders and Venoms respectively was too much and has been changed to a +18% and +9% increase in cost to yield a greater durability per point. Essentially the Raider is paying 5pts for Flickerfields and 5pts for Nightshields while the venom is paying 5pts for Nightshields.

One of the major reasons for adding both Flickerfields and Nightshields to both transports was to increase their ability to deliver assault units up the field where both increases to durability would be used. This along with larger capacities was meant to offer better assault out of an open topped transport opportunity.

5-28-15 Changed To

Raider: 65pts
Wargear: Add Nightshields, Flickerfield
Transport: 15 models

Venom: 60pts
Wargear: Add Nightshields
Transport: 8 models

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I see your still at this game, Zagman. I credit you that you've stuck by this project and put a lot of effort into it. You even seem to have some decent ideas.

However, the bad far outweigh the good. While I don't play Dark Eldar (Yet!), The Dark City are the recognized experts at playing them.

Here are some choice quotes from their reaction to your errata:

Squidmaster: With respect, most of this erratta seems to be about making things cheaper (with the exception of Warriors) without actually improving anything. It doesn't address any balance issues or fix borken/useless units, which is what I would want from an erratta.

Calyptra: I not only think he's wrong about that, I think he's so wrong that I think he fundamentally misunderstands Dark Eldar.

The Shredder: Numbers like 12 and 7 make it a massive pain to build an army to an exact figure like 1500pts. Simple as that.

JackKnife01: This just...no. No....just no......he has completely missed the other strategies. Numbers ofbstartong doesn't bother me, unless they made them more expensive. Venom spam is not the only way to go. My list has done well.

CurstAlchemist: I agree with those that think he hates our anti-vehicle. These changes heavily reduce our ability to field DL weapons while forcing us to increase the number of infantry with their low armor saves. The increase in cost for Raiders and base line Kabalite warriors means we can field less Raider Dark Lances. The reduction in vehicles means the added protection is being used against more focused fire do to fewer vehicles on the field.

you missed one:

Ispa wrote:

Real talk, not everyone is going to like it. that's a fact of life just move on and you do you.

 Barrywise wrote:

Spoiler:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I see your still at this game, Zagman. I credit you that you've stuck by this project and put a lot of effort into it. You even seem to have some decent ideas.

However, the bad far outweigh the good. While I don't play Dark Eldar (Yet!), The Dark City are the recognized experts at playing them.

Here are some choice quotes from their reaction to your errata:

Squidmaster: With respect, most of this erratta seems to be about making things cheaper (with the exception of Warriors) without actually improving anything. It doesn't address any balance issues or fix borken/useless units, which is what I would want from an erratta.

Calyptra: I not only think he's wrong about that, I think he's so wrong that I think he fundamentally misunderstands Dark Eldar.

The Shredder: Numbers like 12 and 7 make it a massive pain to build an army to an exact figure like 1500pts. Simple as that.

JackKnife01: This just...no. No....just no......he has completely missed the other strategies. Numbers ofbstartong doesn't bother me, unless they made them more expensive. Venom spam is not the only way to go. My list has done well.

CurstAlchemist: I agree with those that think he hates our anti-vehicle. These changes heavily reduce our ability to field DL weapons while forcing us to increase the number of infantry with their low armor saves. The increase in cost for Raiders and base line Kabalite warriors means we can field less Raider Dark Lances. The reduction in vehicles means the added protection is being used against more focused fire do to fewer vehicles on the field.

you missed one:

Ispa wrote:

Real talk, not everyone is going to like it. that's a fact of life just move on and you do you.

I forgot about that one, I literally Laughed Out Loud in my office the first time I saw that and again just now. People probably think I'm losing it!

Not everyone is going to be happy, but I truly am trying to implement a fair balance Errata across the board and am trying to understand exactly where I went wrong with my first draft. The last thing I want to do is ruin a Codex and leave anyone anywhere near as underpowered as some of the codices are now. Now, that doesn't mean I have anything against knocking down certain things that are out of scope power wise.





I have been glancing at DE lists and comparing using the Errata, and giving the cost savings in some places and the cost increases in others it looks that the overall effect isn't removing DE AT, but results in similar capabilities with more models in play. Sure, they have to spend more to bring 10 Scourges or Trueborn instead of 5, but they are saving enough points or putting more durable Transports in play. Compared to the competitive lists from other codices DE are fairing better. Casual lists are basically getting more bang for their buck across the board.

Old 5 Scourges with 4x Blasters 140pts
New 5 Scourges with 2x Blasters 99pts
New 10 Scourges with 4x Blasters 199pts

Old 5 Scourges with 4x Haywire 120pts
New 5 Scourges with 2x Haywire 95pts Loses 2xHaywire
New 10 Scourges with 4x Haywire 190pts Gains 5 Scourges for 70pts
This is definitely a loss for Scourges, but is that the only use for scourges? How do we make them more viable for other uses that just spam Special/Heavy choices?

Old 5 Trueborn(55) with 4x Blasters(60) in a DL Raider(60) is 175pts
New 7 Trueborn(63) with 2xBlaster(24) in DL Raider(70pts) is 157pts Loses 2xBlasters and Gains Nightshields and Flickerfields and 2 model
New 10 Trueborn(90pts) with 4xBlasters(48) in DL Raider(70) is 208pts 33pts more than 5man squad and gains 5 models, Nightshields and Flickerfields.
This is arguable, sure it costs more for the same amount of Specials, but it does come with tangible benefits. 5 bodies and a more durable transport.

I am seeing the problems trying to fit in tons of Haywire Blasters, it is definitely harder to spam them now, and more costly. AT is somewhat helped by buffs to the Pain Engins ie cheaper Talos, and definitely by decreasing the cost of the Ravager. 10pts per model cheaper and more options means that Ravagers can now have Flickerfields for the same cost they were before. Squadroned with Flickerfields means they don't even need to Jink to benefit with more flexibility in the Heavy Slot.

When looking at my changes in relation to the Coven, almost everything in the Coven's got cheaper, but with the changes to Battle Brothers the Freakshow suffers somewhat, ie mixing ICs. Stackable negatives to Leadership from Freakish Spectacle is interesting. I wish I had more experience to know if a -1 per instance of the special rules is balanced, or if stacking is balanced. With almost every model in the Freakshow getting better, does Freakish Spectacle put them over the top?

Is the army wide reduction in spammable Haywire the real problem? I feel Darklight potential is still in the army. I feel like the army will be putting more bodies on the table and DE vehicles are going to be surprisingly hardier and with built in Nightshields and Flickerfields anything assault oriented out of a Raider or Venom is going to have greatly improved odds of reaching their targets.

I don't really agree with the scatter laser changes 100% I would think if the power is going to be less then the AP should also be lower. If you are going to reduce it down to Heavy Bolter STR then give it the Heavy Bolter AP Value.

 Xerics wrote:
I don't really agree with the scatter laser changes 100% I would think if the power is going to be less then the AP should also be lower. If you are going to reduce it down to Heavy Bolter STR then give it the Heavy Bolter AP Value.

Absolutely not. It gets four shots at 36". If I had my way, that weapon would be GONE. I've been facing it for 15 years now and I'm sick to death of it. It was overpowered from day one because of the platforms that Eldar can mount it on. And now scatbikes are a thing. Feth this weapon.

Drop it down to AP5 then. Not as good AP due to its 1 more shot. Heavy bolter has the same range as the scatter laser so 36" shouldnt be the deciding factor here. In reality Lasers should have an infinite range as light travels forever until it hits something, but we'll just go on the 36" to keep it "fair".

 Xerics wrote:
Drop it down to AP5 then. Not as good AP due to its 1 more shot. Heavy bolter has the same range as the scatter laser so 36" shouldnt be the deciding factor here. In reality Lasers should have an infinite range as light travels forever until it hits something, but we'll just go on the 36" to keep it "fair".

But Imperial platforms for the heavy bolter are gak. That makes a huge difference in pricing and balancing the weapon. Eldar have amazing platforms for the scatterlaser. Bringing reality into this game is a fool's errand, as our modern armies are more efficacious than these retro-future armies. Because we can hit things.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Drop it down to AP5 then. Not as good AP due to its 1 more shot. Heavy bolter has the same range as the scatter laser so 36" shouldnt be the deciding factor here. In reality Lasers should have an infinite range as light travels forever until it hits something, but we'll just go on the 36" to keep it "fair".

But Imperial platforms for the heavy bolter are gak. That makes a huge difference in pricing and balancing the weapon. Eldar have amazing platforms for the scatterlaser. Bringing reality into this game is a fool's errand, as our modern armies are more efficacious than these retro-future armies. Because we can hit things.

Like on an army of chimeras that also have autocannons and full of troops all for a decently low price? Oh yeah and that have fire points as well.

I just have to ask, what about Blaster armed Trueborn makes them so overpowered that they needed a nerf? I understand that you look at what people use and then take the nerf bat to it but I really don't see where the problem comes in with the Trueborn and Blasters.

A unit of 5 Trueborn with 4 blasters (as that is the maximum number a unit can take) is 115 points, a unit of 5 Fire Dragons is 110 points. The Fire Dragons have one more “special weapon” and come with the same stat line except for a 3+ save over the 5+ of the Trueborn and the Trueborn have one addition close combat attack. Is it the PfP that makes them more powerful and in need of a nerf over the Fire Dragon or is it the over all synergy with our open top vehicles?

In exchange of 1 special weapon for a S1 AP5 splinter rifle, the Blaster Trueborn get a longer range of 6” 1 less AP and Lance. The Fire Dragons get less range AP1 melta and have one additional weapon in the group.

Keep in mind that Splinter Cannons were also changed in this edition to be S1 AP5 so even they can't damage AV10.

I am by no means an expert player and would like to hear the reasoning as to what makes the Trueborn in need of changing while the Fire Dragons don't need to be tweaked so that I can see what I'm failing to take into consideration as the whole or even in part.

LostCorsair wrote:
I just have to ask, what about Blaster armed Trueborn makes them so overpowered that they needed a nerf? I understand that you look at what people use and then take the nerf bat to it but I really don't see where the problem comes in with the Trueborn and Blasters.

A unit of 5 Trueborn with 4 blasters (as that is the maximum number a unit can take) is 115 points, a unit of 5 Fire Dragons is 110 points. The Fire Dragons have one more “special weapon” and come with the same stat line except for a 3+ save over the 5+ of the Trueborn and the Trueborn have one addition close combat attack. Is it the PfP that makes them more powerful and in need of a nerf over the Fire Dragon or is it the over all synergy with our open top vehicles?

In exchange of 1 special weapon for a S1 AP5 splinter rifle, the Blaster Trueborn get a longer range of 6” 1 less AP and Lance. The Fire Dragons get less range AP1 melta and have one additional weapon in the group.

Keep in mind that Splinter Cannons were also changed in this edition to be S1 AP5 so even they can't damage AV10.

I am by no means an expert player and would like to hear the reasoning as to what makes the Trueborn in need of changing while the Fire Dragons don't need to be tweaked so that I can see what I'm failing to take into consideration as the whole or even in part.

Pretty much second this.

Zagman,

I really like what you're trying to do with the erratta.

However, as you write more and more erratas, the hand is becoming heavier and heavier.

While most of your errata people seem to prefer over the current books, it feels like this one just didn't work. It seems like most people - myself included - would prefer the current book to the Dark Eldar erratta you've written up.

I don't want to be insulting - I highly respect your work, and like what you've done with many codecies - but I believe you should revert this one. Perhaps take another pass where less is changed? Or, perhaps, the stock Codex has reasonable external balance vs other Erratta, and could be left as is for now?

This one book (Dark Eldar) seems to be your first flop of any kind. It risks further derailing the project. I'd suggest walking away from it for now (rolling back to stock?). The one true necessary change (no more WWP Wraithguard) was fixed via Alliance rules. Perhaps come back to it later?

I still believe the change to make bladestorm ap 3 is unneeded. Either give it something else of keep it the way it is.
In your comparison you are putting it against an ideal target (marines)(so ap 3 vs 2 changes nothing) and only looking at the shooting comparison when marines offer more options for the same points.
A fair comparison would be 2 kitted out squads functioning against terminators(which would need alot of work to be fixed anyhow.) and seeing how these two units compare.

For example (terminator assault squad assault cannon)
Lets say starting range 12" and first turn to our competitors.(12 so that they are both close-if term deepstriked it would probable be that close...)
Also exclude shrine benefit, command doctrines and the like because they would need increased points to do a comparison.
127 (8+grav gun) vs 130 (10)

10 DA move to 18", Shoot 20 shots, land 13.33 hits, wound 4.44 normal and 2.22 rending*. (1.5) from rending*, (.74) regular. totaling 2.24 dead(so 2 since it is unlikely to kill the third).
Return Fire- 2 storm bolters, 1 assault cannon(ap destroys armour without needing to rend)
4/4 shots, land 2.67/2.67 hits, wound 1.78/2.23, .88/ 2.23 failed armor saves. total dead (3)
This shows that if DA strike first that the terminators die...(lose more points).

But if terminators go first
(simple double storm bolter kills (1.76+2.23) total of 3.99 (so 4 dead)
Return fire (2.24/10*6)=1.334 or 1 kill. so equal numbers( just proves that blood angels terminators are overcosted(should be like grey knights at 30-33 points a model)
The DA squad though is crippled and will die before killing off the terminator squad.

Now lets see how the marines fair?
12" stary
14 bolter, 3 grav. hits 9.33/2, wounds 4.67/1.67, failed saves .78/.1.11, total(1.89) dealing slightly less damage on average than dire avengers but still removing 2 models worth.
Return FIre 2.67/2.67 hits, wounds 1.335/1.78 /.445 rend, failed saves .445/.59/.445, total(1.48) (lost less than the DA squad did.)

Terminators first
8/4, (double .445)rest the same(1.93) still lose not that much and can still damage or win vs the terminators easily.


This shows that while the da can do marginally more damage they are less survivable aka what eldar are hit hard and die fast.
If you then look at atsknf or that fact that spacemarine can actually hold up in cc and are generalists that can handle more situations for 1 point more it seems to be balanced.
Making it ap3 and not wounding to mc's would simple hamper the base troop who cannot take specialized weapons like marines.
When marines die their power drops minimally until their special and heavies are gone.(put out similar till the main guy is dead).
And tactical marines are seen as bad anyways compared to other troops.
Being marginally better than a bad choice is not exactly balanced.

IN conclusion the change advocated for would not be beneficial to balancing. Increasing the rate of fire, lowering the strength, and giving auto wound on 6's(no rend) would work and is a change I can advocate for (shred seems like it would be too op.... according to other forms)

The thing I hated about the recent DE Codex was that they whilst they made Wyches a integral part of DE culture and warfare (pretty much the same thing) they screwed them over completely in the rules - they were bad in the previous codex but they made them worse in the new one. Its one of the main reasons I looked at but would not purchase the codex

A Dark Eldar Wych is a exceptionally well trained and highly skilled gladiatorial fighter, simply dropping their points is totally the wrong way to approach them IMO.

Wyches should be at least WS 4 (remember the same as Guardians!) and Bloodbrides WS 6 - remember a Succubus is IIRC WS8?
Give them a optional poisoned weapons upgrade - its their kind of thing
I would seriously look at the 7th ed Howling Banshee upgrade as well and consider some of their abilities.....
I would go for a 4++ dodge against Close Combat, 5++ against overwatch and shooting (but not template, blast or ordinance weapons)

As I pointed out in another thread - High WS is massively undervalued and implemented and its sickening how often a high WS character versus a stationary vehicle or say a Gretchin can miss on a 3+. If you have double or better WS than your opponent you should hit on 2's.

It seems to me that the DE could use a couple new units. Since we are not using the light hand here anyway.

Xerics wrote:I don't really agree with the scatter laser changes 100% I would think if the power is going to be less then the AP should also be lower. If you are going to reduce it down to Heavy Bolter STR then give it the Heavy Bolter AP Value.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
I don't really agree with the scatter laser changes 100% I would think if the power is going to be less then the AP should also be lower. If you are going to reduce it down to Heavy Bolter STR then give it the Heavy Bolter AP Value.

Absolutely not. It gets four shots at 36". If I had my way, that weapon would be GONE. I've been facing it for 15 years now and I'm sick to death of it. It was overpowered from day one because of the platforms that Eldar can mount it on. And now scatbikes are a thing. Feth this weapon.

Xerics wrote:Drop it down to AP5 then. Not as good AP due to its 1 more shot. Heavy bolter has the same range as the scatter laser so 36" shouldnt be the deciding factor here. In reality Lasers should have an infinite range as light travels forever until it hits something, but we'll just go on the 36" to keep it "fair".

If you to back to the first page I believe I did a statistical breadown of all the weapon changes and the S5 Scatterlaser still performs well and has a niche that is not easily filled. I suppose it could get AP5... but then it is a double Range Burst Cannon on BS4 on many platforms for the same cost as on a BS3 Crisis. Heavy 4 S5 AP6 is pretty much a sweet spot and gives the Scatter laser a real place for general utility and GEQ targeting, plus its range is still very useful over the Shuriken Cannon and Rate of Fire and cost over the Starcannon.

Take a look at the mathhammer comparison of the weapons and let me know what you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LostCorsair wrote:I just have to ask, what about Blaster armed Trueborn makes them so overpowered that they needed a nerf? I understand that you look at what people use and then take the nerf bat to it but I really don't see where the problem comes in with the Trueborn and Blasters.

A unit of 5 Trueborn with 4 blasters (as that is the maximum number a unit can take) is 115 points, a unit of 5 Fire Dragons is 110 points. The Fire Dragons have one more “special weapon” and come with the same stat line except for a 3+ save over the 5+ of the Trueborn and the Trueborn have one addition close combat attack. Is it the PfP that makes them more powerful and in need of a nerf over the Fire Dragon or is it the over all synergy with our open top vehicles?

In exchange of 1 special weapon for a S1 AP5 splinter rifle, the Blaster Trueborn get a longer range of 6” 1 less AP and Lance. The Fire Dragons get less range AP1 melta and have one additional weapon in the group.

Keep in mind that Splinter Cannons were also changed in this edition to be S1 AP5 so even they can't damage AV10.

I am by no means an expert player and would like to hear the reasoning as to what makes the Trueborn in need of changing while the Fire Dragons don't need to be tweaked so that I can see what I'm failing to take into consideration as the whole or even in part.

I really don't hate Blaster armed Trueborn, I really don't. What I didn't like was how front loaded and designed to be spammed the squad was. My changes were meant to put more bodies in play and keep functionality and power level. Internal balance was the concern.

Fire Dragons are not also able to be put in a cheap and effective dedicated transport with 18" range. Its not a terribly good comparision, FDs have to get out of their transport to fire and then have to footslog it. Also, with transport their cost is quite a bit higher.

My goals was to change the inherent design and necessity to spam certain units. I wanted to change the frontloading of Trueborn and Scourges being cheap and having access to all four Special/Heavy weapons out of the gate. I also wanted to do it in a way that didn't overly nerf the DE dex. Obviously there is pretty strong sentiment that I missed the mark.

Bharring wrote:Zagman,

I really like what you're trying to do with the erratta.

However, as you write more and more erratas, the hand is becoming heavier and heavier.

While most of your errata people seem to prefer over the current books, it feels like this one just didn't work. It seems like most people - myself included - would prefer the current book to the Dark Eldar erratta you've written up.

I don't want to be insulting - I highly respect your work, and like what you've done with many codecies - but I believe you should revert this one. Perhaps take another pass where less is changed? Or, perhaps, the stock Codex has reasonable external balance vs other Erratta, and could be left as is for now?

This one book (Dark Eldar) seems to be your first flop of any kind. It risks further derailing the project. I'd suggest walking away from it for now (rolling back to stock?). The one true necessary change (no more WWP Wraithguard) was fixed via Alliance rules. Perhaps come back to it later?

This Errata is the first one to have truly negative feedback. I am open to all suggestions on how to internally balance it. I didn't like how heavy of a hand I was using either, and I noticed it. But, could not come up with any other ideas to re balance it.


This is why I created a rough draft for each codex, putting down my initial thoughts on how to go about it. I am open to any and all ideas of how to affect greater internal balance without trashing external balance. I'm not opposed to scrapping it and starting over, I would just prefer to have community driven input for the DE Errata as I'm much more likely to succeed that way.

No one has yet put forth any ideas on how to affect greater internal and external balance within the DE codex. Start from scratch, put down a list of the biggest problems that need correcting. Obviously my ideas on how to do it were met with great resistance.

You aren't being insulting, only one member was directly insulting. You've been nothing but respectful and have consistently offered constructive criticism. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, so long as the exchange is done in a respectful and adult manner.




Start from the Stock DE book and spitball your ideas for the Errata, I would love to hear them.

Slayer222 wrote:I still believe the change to make bladestorm ap 3 is unneeded. Either give it something else of keep it the way it is.
In your comparison you are putting it against an ideal target (marines)(so ap 3 vs 2 changes nothing) and only looking at the shooting comparison when marines offer more options for the same points.
A fair comparison would be 2 kitted out squads functioning against terminators(which would need alot of work to be fixed anyhow.) and seeing how these two units compare.

For example (terminator assault squad assault cannon)
Lets say starting range 12" and first turn to our competitors.(12 so that they are both close-if term deepstriked it would probable be that close...)
Also exclude shrine benefit, command doctrines and the like because they would need increased points to do a comparison.
127 (8+grav gun) vs 130 (10)

10 DA move to 18", Shoot 20 shots, land 13.33 hits, wound 4.44 normal and 2.22 rending*. (1.5) from rending*, (.74) regular. totaling 2.24 dead(so 2 since it is unlikely to kill the third).
Return Fire- 2 storm bolters, 1 assault cannon(ap destroys armour without needing to rend)
4/4 shots, land 2.67/2.67 hits, wound 1.78/2.23, .88/ 2.23 failed armor saves. total dead (3)
This shows that if DA strike first that the terminators die...(lose more points).

But if terminators go first
(simple double storm bolter kills (1.76+2.23) total of 3.99 (so 4 dead)
Return fire (2.24/10*6)=1.334 or 1 kill. so equal numbers( just proves that blood angels terminators are overcosted(should be like grey knights at 30-33 points a model)
The DA squad though is crippled and will die before killing off the terminator squad.

Now lets see how the marines fair?
12" stary
14 bolter, 3 grav. hits 9.33/2, wounds 4.67/1.67, failed saves .78/.1.11, total(1.89) dealing slightly less damage on average than dire avengers but still removing 2 models worth.
Return FIre 2.67/2.67 hits, wounds 1.335/1.78 /.445 rend, failed saves .445/.59/.445, total(1.48) (lost less than the DA squad did.)

Terminators first
8/4, (double .445)rest the same(1.93) still lose not that much and can still damage or win vs the terminators easily.


This shows that while the da can do marginally more damage they are less survivable aka what eldar are hit hard and die fast.
If you then look at atsknf or that fact that spacemarine can actually hold up in cc and are generalists that can handle more situations for 1 point more it seems to be balanced.
Making it ap3 and not wounding to mc's would simple hamper the base troop who cannot take specialized weapons like marines.
When marines die their power drops minimally until their special and heavies are gone.(put out similar till the main guy is dead).
And tactical marines are seen as bad anyways compared to other troops.
Being marginally better than a bad choice is not exactly balanced.

IN conclusion the change advocated for would not be beneficial to balancing. Increasing the rate of fire, lowering the strength, and giving auto wound on 6's(no rend) would work and is a change I can advocate for (shred seems like it would be too op.... according to other forms)

An example using only TEQ is not appropriate as it is picking the one target profile where Bladestorm is not effective. Effectively having Rending on the vast majority of weapons in an army is a bit crazy. Bladestorm to AP3 improves interenal balance for the Shuriken Cannon vs Starcannon, otherwise a perfectly good and balanced weapon, the Starcannon, is never fielded becasue almost every model in the DE army has psuedo rending.

The AP3 bladestorm change only affects a very small subset of units, GC with T8+(for S4) and T10(for S6) or any model with a 2+AS, of which that is a very small subset of the potential targets out there. Against the vast majority of the common targets it is unchanged, and only that small subset which reduces the efficacy of all Shuriken Weapons. Internal balance among weapon selection is greatly improved for heavy weapons, and it also gives arguably the best special rule on any infantry weapon in the game inefficient targets.

Using TEQ as the only comparison is not right, vs everything else they are still very solid weapons with good rates of damage output.

The problem with changing or adding a different rule is affects much greater targets in the game.


Yes, Eldar are specialists and their non specialist troops should excel against every target projile short of AV, with unmodified Bladestorm they have no bad targets, none. Marines have to take specials weapon upgrades to perform certain tasks whereas the Eldar chooser certain units which specialize in certain tasks. Having the ultimate generalist infantry weapon seems make that a moot point. And again, vs the vast majority of targets in the game, just look at the troops section of every army, Bladestorm performs just as well as it did before, its only against specialized defenses ie 2+ AS and GMCs does Bladestorm potentially come up short, that that is only on infantry, the Shuriken Cannon still performs against GMCs up to T9.

Mr Morden wrote:The thing I hated about the recent DE Codex was that they whilst they made Wyches a integral part of DE culture and warfare (pretty much the same thing) they screwed them over completely in the rules - they were bad in the previous codex but they made them worse in the new one. Its one of the main reasons I looked at but would not purchase the codex

A Dark Eldar Wych is a exceptionally well trained and highly skilled gladiatorial fighter, simply dropping their points is totally the wrong way to approach them IMO.

Wyches should be at least WS 4 (remember the same as Guardians!) and Bloodbrides WS 6 - remember a Succubus is IIRC WS8?
Give them a optional poisoned weapons upgrade - its their kind of thing
I would seriously look at the 7th ed Howling Banshee upgrade as well and consider some of their abilities.....
I would go for a 4++ dodge against Close Combat, 5++ against overwatch and shooting (but not template, blast or ordinance weapons)

As I pointed out in another thread - High WS is massively undervalued and implemented and its sickening how often a high WS character versus a stationary vehicle or say a Gretchin can miss on a 3+. If you have double or better WS than your opponent you should hit on 2's.

This looks like something that is outside the scope of what I'm trying to do. Would simply changing Dodge to work against Overwatch be enough? The fewer changes the better.

Martel732 wrote:It seems to me that the DE could use a couple new units. Since we are not using the light hand here anyway.

That is something I'd like to avoid at all costs.

"That is something I'd like to avoid at all costs."

Seems rather minor compared to what I'd prefer to do. Tear down the whole system and rebuild with D10's or D20's.

Martel732 wrote:
"That is something I'd like to avoid at all costs."

Seems rather minor compared to what I'd prefer to do. Tear down the whole system and rebuild with D10's or D20's.

See the picture posted earlier from The Dark City. Somebody sounds like they need a hug. Besides, I happen to like how 40k uses D6's.

Look Zagman, I know I may sound rude at times, and for that I apologize. But while you accuse me of not giving constructive feedback, you yourself have not been open to feedback either. Instead of listening to the feedback you've been given, you've done noting but defend your ideas despite evidence to the contrary.

I know the place where you're coming from. You have put a lot of effort into these Errata, and while I don't agree with all of the changes to the core and in some of the other factions, it's clear that they are meeting with more success than this one. I understand wanting to defend what you have built up and defend it from people you perceive as attacking it, but like I said earlier, sometimes the most constructive criticism you can receive is when to stop and start over.

@Zagman: I notice you like to use terms like internal and external balance. that is fine but as I don't know you personally these terms don't provide me with adequate insight into your overall reasoning and conclusion. To better understand your line of reasoning and how you come to your conclusions I'm going to ask some questions some of which will cross over.

What are the overall factors that you look for when considering a Codex's internal balance?

What are the overall factors that you look for when considering a Codex's external balance?

When considering the Codex's balance do you only look at it as a self contained Codex or are you judging it on the ability to take other Codex's detachments? The ability to have battle brothers and such changes things drastically and many Dark Eldar Players already feel like the Dark Eldar Codex only exists to supplement the Eldar Codex. Despite this many Dark Eldar Players don't want to use Battle Brothers but instead want to run pure Dark Eldar lists.

Do you take into consideration, that "internally" the Dark Eldar have no Psykers of their own?

That we lack real artillery of our own? We have no Vaul's Wrath Support batteries, prism tanks or Wraithknights to barrage/template our enemies with from afar, we need to get in their face and start shooting/assaulting to reduce what the enemy can do to us next turn and to minimize our losses as we don't have anything that can just stand on the edge of the map behind an aegis defense line.

Our Army is based heavily on being front loaded, our flyers come in unload their payload and then we have no more blast templates besides Short/mid-ranged ranged weapons such as the shredder, grenades, and Dark-Scyths.

Footlogging Kabarites is like footslogging Imperial guard excpet for the fact that the Imperial Guard have the before mentioned artillery to create a gunline. WWP in Trueborn with 2 blasters and 1 Darklance means that the Darklance is snapfiring so we only have 2 blasters to count on from the Trueborn and an additional Blaster/Hayware grenade/blaster pistol (depending on how we equiped an Archon to support them), then the next turn they are shot to death with a +5 armor and a (6+ maybe 5+ FnP depending on turn).

Unlike the Eldar, a pure Dark Eldar list doesn't have anyway to manipulate reserve rolls and both the front ended firepower of the Flyers and a WWP still subject to getting good rolls for them to come in at a crucial moment.

The change in price for heavy weapons for Kabalites make them cheaper to put on a unit but those same Heavy Weapons still remains snapfire while on a moving transport making it pretty much a waste of points unless I'm having them take an objective I'm going to be sitting on they don't contribute much to the actual fight.

Despite having night vision we also lack anyway of guaranteeing a battle will be a night fight and that benefit only has any meaning on turn 1 as it ends right after.

Anyway, I have ranted enough and with that said I'll finish by saying that these are my questions and thoughts on the matter. As stated before I'm not a great player but am interested in hearing what you have to say or feel I need correcting on.

Edit: The reason why I don't propose alternatives is because I don't view myself as qualified to do such. I worry that any changes I might propose would be more on the side of wishlisting rather then doing much to help game balance but maybe by bringing these things up it might have you see something you overlooked while working on it.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"That is something I'd like to avoid at all costs."

Seems rather minor compared to what I'd prefer to do. Tear down the whole system and rebuild with D10's or D20's.

See the picture posted earlier from The Dark City. Somebody sounds like they need a hug. Besides, I happen to like how 40k uses D6's.

Look Zagman, I know I may sound rude at times, and for that I apologize. But while you accuse me of not giving constructive feedback, you yourself have not been open to feedback either. Instead of listening to the feedback you've been given, you've done noting but defend your ideas despite evidence to the contrary.

I know the place where you're coming from. You have put a lot of effort into these Errata, and while I don't agree with all of the changes to the core and in some of the other factions, it's clear that they are meeting with more success than this one. I understand wanting to defend what you have built up and defend it from people you perceive as attacking it, but like I said earlier, sometimes the most constructive criticism you can receive is when to stop and start over.

We are definitely having a communication breakdown. I am open to feedback, I really am. If you put forth an argument, structure it well, and its valid I'm very much likely to change my conclusions. I've already admitted that I am more than happy to start completely over with the DE Errata, but I want a direction from those that napalmed the original. If I don't have direction on where to take if, I'm doomed to repeat my same mistakes.

I had absolutely no problem with changing anything I did in the first draft of the errata, everything is subject to change. Pick something and tell me why it needs to change. So far the prevailing concerns were reducing the number of DE vehicles, I believed that the increased durability was enough to offset that. Show me I'm wrong. DE AT is too far reduced, I tried to give them alternatives to compensate, or drop costs in places to make up for it. Just show me I'm wrong with the 2/5 Heavy/Specials.


Would removing the 2/5 Heavy restriction and reverting back to the stock 4 be enough for Trueborn and Scourges?? The only real reduction to DE AT came from this modification. Is it enough? I wanted an incentive for not min/maxing Trueborn and Scourges, but obviously the way I wanted to do it was met with a lot of resistance.

Or alternatively, assume a revert back to the original, what changes need to be made. I am completely open to suggestions. I did get defensive because I wasn't seeing any constructive suggestions and only attacks. I am open to feedback, but it needs to be structured and communicated well. Repeated telling me I know nothing of DE without offering alternate suggestions is not productive.

This looks like something that is outside the scope of what I'm trying to do. Would simply changing Dodge to work against Overwatch be enough? The fewer changes the better.

IMO - absolutely not - Wyches are a travesty at present - especially when compared to Craftworld brethrin - they need a lot of help and just reducing pts is IMO insulting .............

Maybe Trueborn and Scourges need more of a role differentiation. I think instead of limiting the number of weapons that can be taken, it would be better to limit the type.

Trueborn: Up to four models may take one of the following special weapons:
-Shardcarbine: Free
-Shredder: 5 points
-Blaster: 10 points
In addition, up to two models may take one of the following heavy weapons:
-Splinter Cannon: 10 points
-Dark Lance: 15 points

Scourges: up to four models may take one of the following weapons:
-Shredder: 5 points
-Heat Lance: 10 points
-Haywire Blaster: 15 points

Trueborn get a discounted price on the standard heavy weapons to compensate for the cost of their transport, but can't take the exotic heavy weapons.
Scourges get access to the exotic heavy weapons and have their own delivery system, but have fewer options.

IMO this strikes a good balance between the two units internally.

LostCorsair wrote:
@Zagman: I notice you like to use terms like internal and external balance. that is fine but as I don't know you personally these terms don't provide me with adequate insight into your overall reasoning and conclusion. To better understand your line of reasoning and how you come to your conclusions I'm going to ask some questions some of which will cross over.

What are the overall factors that you look for when considering a Codex's internal balance?

What are the overall factors that you look for when considering a Codex's external balance?

When considering the Codex's balance do you only look at it as a self contained Codex or are you judging it on the ability to take other Codex's detachments? The ability to have battle brothers and such changes things drastically and many Dark Eldar Players already feel like the Dark Eldar Codex only exists to supplement the Eldar Codex. Despite this many Dark Eldar Players don't want to use Battle Brothers but instead want to run pure Dark Eldar lists.

Do you take into consideration, that "internally" the Dark Eldar have no Psykers of their own?

That we lack real artillery of our own? We have no Vaul's Wrath Support batteries, prism tanks or Wraithknights to barrage/template our enemies with from afar, we need to get in their face and start shooting/assaulting to reduce what the enemy can do to us next turn and to minimize our losses as we don't have anything that can just stand on the edge of the map behind an aegis defense line.

Our Army is based heavily on being front loaded, our flyers come in unload their payload and then we have no more blast templates besides Short/mid-ranged ranged weapons such as the shredder, grenades, and Dark-Scyths.

Footlogging Kabarites is like footslogging Imperial guard excpet for the fact that the Imperial Guard have the before mentioned artillery to create a gunline. WWP in Trueborn with 2 blasters and 1 Darklance means that the Darklance is snapfiring so we only have 2 blasters to count on from the Trueborn and an additional Blaster/Hayware grenade/blaster pistol (depending on how we equiped an Archon to support them), then the next turn they are shot to death with a +5 armor and a (6+ maybe 5+ FnP depending on turn).

Unlike the Eldar, a pure Dark Eldar list doesn't have anyway to manipulate reserve rolls and both the front ended firepower of the Flyers and a WWP still subject to getting good rolls for them to come in at a crucial moment.

The change in price for heavy weapons for Kabalites make them cheaper to put on a unit but those same Heavy Weapons still remains snapfire while on a moving transport making it pretty much a waste of points unless I'm having them take an objective I'm going to be sitting on they don't contribute much to the actual fight.

Despite having night vision we also lack anyway of guaranteeing a battle will be a night fight and that benefit only has any meaning on turn 1 as it ends right after.

Anyway, I have ranted enough and with that said I'll finish by saying that these are my questions and thoughts on the matter. As stated before I'm not a great player but am interested in hearing what you have to say or feel I need correcting on.

Edit: The reason why I don't propose alternatives is because I don't view myself as qualified to do such. I worry that any changes I might propose would be more on the side of wishlisting rather then doing much to help game balance but maybe by bringing these things up it might have you see something you overlooked while working on it.

Internal Balance: I define internal balance as having the majority, ideally all, of the choices in a codex being of equal relative value, ie for their cost in points bring a roughly equal ability to affect the game to the table. These ways are likely very different, but everything should be viable. This extends to upgrades on units as well. Ideally all choices in an army have merit and there are no standouts or must avoids. If anything is an autoinclude or a no chance in hell its not balanced. A good example is the Wraithknight vs the Wraithlord, the Storm Guardian vs the Windrider Jetbike, Terminators vs Tacticals, etc. Anytime you see almost exclusively one way to field a unit or army it is a sign of internal balance problems ie WhiteScar Grav Bikers. With good internal balance the gap between optimal and sub-optimal is closed significantly.

External Balance: I define external balance as all codices having a roughly equal ability to affect the game when compared to cost in points. Points should buy you roughly equal capabilities, although though differing mechanisms, to affect the game around you. This includes the potential synergy and combinations. For instance a unit may be balanced ie Grav Centurions, but when giving the ability for synergy, ie Tigerious and Driago or borrowed BB Pods, creates an unbalanced unit with capabilities far exceeding its cost in point. Sometimes this is a direct unit comparison when they are similar enough ie BA Tacticals vs SM Chapter Tactics Tacticals or Soulgrinders vs Defilers, etc. Othertimes its a net affect of a unit and it a bit more abstract, the unit's durability, offensive capabilities, mobility, and potential special rules have to be considered. Ie comparing a 19ppm Warp Spider with a 17ppm Assault marine, or a 295pts Wraithknight to a well 195pts of anything else.

When looking at balance I do try and look at what combinations are possible, this is a reason to my overall changes to Battle Brothers, ie downgrading them to Allies of Convenience. This alone eliminates almost all combinations which provided synergy vastly in excess of their cost, ie WWP WraithScythe, borrowed pods for AdMech, or Grav Cents, DE Taxi Service, etc. All are things that provide vast amounts of Synergy that take relatively balanced units and through a particular combination allow levels of power far in excess of what is available to most options. It was one of the biggest reasons I made the change to BB. Under my changes, DE are in no way supplementing Eldar, except on their own footing.

I understand DE have no Psykers, but that doesn't' change internal balance concerns, and as far as external balance is concerned as long as DE and Psykers are costed appropriately for their ability to affect the game not having them matters far less. I understand DE don't have Artillery, and they aren't the only army lacking certain unit types either, and if DE are costed appropriately for their abilities balance can be attained. Codices do not have to be equal in all ways, from from it, but should for thier cost in points bring an equal ability to affect the game to the table.

I do understand how frontloaded DE are designed to be. Glass Cannons are also more difficult to balance than slow and steadies, too little punch or durability and the suffer like DE, too much punch and durability and they are OP ie Eldar. This is something that can be balanced around IMO, it just takes work.

Footslogging DE do die like Guardsman, I agree. Its why I gave them a bit of a points drop either 1-2pts per model to help balance out their losses before FNP kick in. I also tried to improve both transports durability/cost ratio. Artillery is arguably necessary, as is the Gunline aspect of it. WWP Archon with Trueborn 115pts for 5 Trueborn with 4 Blasters. Now you could do 7 Trueborn with two Blasters and one upgraded to a Dracon with a Blast Pistol for 99pts. 16pts cheaper, netted you 2 additional bodies and costs you effectively one Blaster Shot. Alternatively you could then field 10 Trueborn wtih 4 Blasters and a Blast Pistol Dracon for 150pts. 35pts nets you an additional five Trueborn and an additional Blast Shot or its 23pts for 5 Trueborn effectively. This excludes the Achon's Wargear upgrades getting cheaper(18pts less if he goes Blast Pistol Shadowfield), so the ultimate effect will be significantly more DE bodies on the table at a marginal cost. And for an additional 69pts it could have been 15 Trueborn with 6 Blasters and a Blast Pistol Dracon for 219pts. Not quite twice the firepower as the MinMax Blaster Trueborn squad but it brings tripple the model count and an upgraded Sergeant.

I completely agree, DE don't have a way to manipulate Reserve Rolls just like a couple of other armies out there. It would be fitting for them to have some way of doing so.

Kabalite Warriors and Heavy weapons... I certainly would put a Darklance on a unit meant to be moving, but 5pts for a Sybarite and 7pts for a Blast Pistol isn't bad, but better yet use the Assault Weapon Heavy Weapons. The Dark Lance or Splinter Cannon would be ok in a unit of 15 in a Raider. Probably not great, or you could simply use the Assault Heavy Weapons like the Heatlance or Haywire Blaster, 15 Warriors with 3 Blasters and 3 Haywire Blasters is 171pts 183pts with a Blast Pistol Sybarite. Sure, these may not be optimal or ideal loadouts, but they are many times more flexible than the stock DE codex for Kabalite Warriors. Could look at min 5x Warriors with Blaster in Dual Cannon Venom for 120pts becomes 7xWarriors with Blaster in Dual Cannon Venom for 131pts. 11pts got you two additional bodies and a more resilient transport thanks to Nightshields. 10pts more gets you a Heatlance as well. The goal was to keep capabilities close, increase viable options, increase model count and resilience per point of transports, etc. Either way, it certainly was not well received, not in the slightest.


I hope I was able to answer the questions you asked, I was a bit pressed for time so my answer isn't terribly thorough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Morden wrote:

This looks like something that is outside the scope of what I'm trying to do. Would simply changing Dodge to work against Overwatch be enough? The fewer changes the better.

IMO - absolutely not - Wyches are a travesty at present - especially when compared to Craftworld brethrin - they need a lot of help and just reducing pts is IMO insulting .............

I completely agree Wyches are a travesty at present. Lots of armies look that way compared to the Craftworld, less so compared to my Errataed Craftworld. Insulting was not the intent. Any suggestions for how so fix Wyches in the easiest and simplest way possible? I considered allowing Dodge to apply to Overwatch as well, but that is a rule rewrite and not enough on its own.

TheNewBlood wrote:Maybe Trueborn and Scourges need more of a role differentiation. I think instead of limiting the number of weapons that can be taken, it would be better to limit the type.

Trueborn: Up to four models may take one of the following special weapons:
-Shardcarbine: Free
-Shredder: 5 points
-Blaster: 10 points
In addition, up to two models may take one of the following heavy weapons:
-Splinter Cannon: 10 points
-Dark Lance: 15 points

Scourges: up to four models may take one of the following weapons:
-Shredder: 5 points
-Heat Lance: 10 points
-Haywire Blaster: 15 points

Trueborn get a discounted price on the standard heavy weapons to compensate for the cost of their transport, but can't take the exotic heavy weapons.
Scourges get access to the exotic heavy weapons and have their own delivery system, but have fewer options.

IMO this strikes a good balance between the two units internally.

I didn't limit the number of weapons that could be taken, only incresaed the number of cheaper models you had to field to get that amount. Its a subtle difference.

So, now you can field Blaster Trueborn cheaper.... 20pts discount. So, can you give me one instance where a player would ever take more than five Trueborn? I was attempting to incentive a large squad, taking 10 cheaper Trueborn to get 4 Specials instead of having access to all of your heavies at your minimum squad size like many do.

And now Scourges are just 20pts more expensive for Haywire Blasters and again zero incentive to every field more than the minimum...

I guess I'm not seeing how this is role differentiation or how these suggestions are helpful. At least from an internal/external balance standpoint.

Wyches

Minimum:

Poisoned Weapons (2+) as stock
Dodge works against Overwatch
Bloodbrides become WS6

@Zagman: Thank you for taking the time to reply and I want to make something clear about my post (not sure if you took it this way but it is also for anyone else reading the thread), the questions and statements about Psykers and artillery is in no way me trying to ask/wishlist for these things. I like the way Dark Eldar plays and don't want them to become Space Elf Guardsmen.

With that said I'm also seeing where you have made a mistake on or forgot to include in your Errata. If you look at the foot note for Haywire Blasters and Heatlances they are restricted to Scourges only. Unless you amend this with your Errata Trueborn are still unable to take these weapons.

The way our army currently works is to get our hard hitters into melee as quickly as possible and to use our mobility to keep our gunboats and venoms from being charged if we can. This is why the Darklance is almost never taken on Kabalites and Trueborn, any movement and they snapfire so we would rather have any other weapon with range. Blaster Pistols also tend to get ignored as our objective is usually to stay away and the short range means we are definitely getting charged if we want that model to fire.

I believe that these are some of the reasons your errata has met with so much resistance.

I would also like to say that while the drop in price for Sybarite/Deacon upgrades is nice as well as the cost of their upgrades, many of us would rather just give them haywire grenades and keep the Splinter Rifle. As Splinter Rifles are Rapid Fire not assault it is better, at least in my mind, to get those extra shots with the free splinter rifle then plan for a charge at close range that will most likely get them killed.

Additional Note: Splinter Carbines, which are assault but have a shorter range than the Splinter Rifles, are limited to Scourges.

 Zagman wrote:

TheNewBlood wrote:Maybe Trueborn and Scourges need more of a role differentiation. I think instead of limiting the number of weapons that can be taken, it would be better to limit the type.

Trueborn: Up to four models may take one of the following special weapons:
-Shardcarbine: Free
-Shredder: 5 points
-Blaster: 10 points
In addition, up to two models may take one of the following heavy weapons:
-Splinter Cannon: 10 points
-Dark Lance: 15 points

Scourges: up to four models may take one of the following weapons:
-Shredder: 5 points
-Heat Lance: 10 points
-Haywire Blaster: 15 points

Trueborn get a discounted price on the standard heavy weapons to compensate for the cost of their transport, but can't take the exotic heavy weapons.
Scourges get access to the exotic heavy weapons and have their own delivery system, but have fewer options.

IMO this strikes a good balance between the two units internally.

I didn't limit the number of weapons that could be taken, only incresaed the number of cheaper models you had to field to get that amount. Its a subtle difference.

So, now you can field Blaster Trueborn cheaper.... 20pts discount. So, can you give me one instance where a player would ever take more than five Trueborn? I was attempting to incentive a large squad, taking 10 cheaper Trueborn to get 4 Specials instead of having access to all of your heavies at your minimum squad size like many do.

And now Scourges are just 20pts more expensive for Haywire Blasters and again zero incentive to every field more than the minimum...

I guess I'm not seeing how this is role differentiation or how these suggestions are helpful. At least from an internal/external balance standpoint.

The problem is that the larger unit of cheap models is more expensive points-wise that the smaller unit of expensive models. Add to that the cost of the weapons themselves, and the result is a net price increase for essentially that same result.

Trueborn are a weird unit; the only other unit comparable in terms of role is Chaos Chosen. They are designed to be a small unit of Elites whose strength lies in their ability to take lots of special weapons. For a unit like that, there doesn't need to be an incentive to field a larger unit; they are designed to have a small footprint.

There never was an incentive to field more than the minimum size of Scourges either. Even in the old codex, people who did use them only did so in squads of five for the dual Haywire. This is why I support more of a differentiation in role; they are similarly designed units that are clashing against each other in the current codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Wyches

Minimum:

Poisoned Weapons (2+) as stock
Dodge works against Overwatch
Bloodbrides become WS6

A change to Dodge would be the simplest means of making Wyches effective while keeping them in line with the established lore.

"Dodge: models with this special rule gain a 4++ invulnerable save in the Assault Phases of both players' turns."

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Spoiler:

 Zagman wrote:

TheNewBlood wrote:Maybe Trueborn and Scourges need more of a role differentiation. I think instead of limiting the number of weapons that can be taken, it would be better to limit the type.

Trueborn: Up to four models may take one of the following special weapons:
-Shardcarbine: Free
-Shredder: 5 points
-Blaster: 10 points
In addition, up to two models may take one of the following heavy weapons:
-Splinter Cannon: 10 points
-Dark Lance: 15 points

Scourges: up to four models may take one of the following weapons:
-Shredder: 5 points
-Heat Lance: 10 points
-Haywire Blaster: 15 points

Trueborn get a discounted price on the standard heavy weapons to compensate for the cost of their transport, but can't take the exotic heavy weapons.
Scourges get access to the exotic heavy weapons and have their own delivery system, but have fewer options.

IMO this strikes a good balance between the two units internally.

I didn't limit the number of weapons that could be taken, only incresaed the number of cheaper models you had to field to get that amount. Its a subtle difference.

So, now you can field Blaster Trueborn cheaper.... 20pts discount. So, can you give me one instance where a player would ever take more than five Trueborn? I was attempting to incentive a large squad, taking 10 cheaper Trueborn to get 4 Specials instead of having access to all of your heavies at your minimum squad size like many do.

And now Scourges are just 20pts more expensive for Haywire Blasters and again zero incentive to every field more than the minimum...

I guess I'm not seeing how this is role differentiation or how these suggestions are helpful. At least from an internal/external balance standpoint.

The problem is that the larger unit of cheap models is more expensive points-wise that the smaller unit of expensive models. Add to that the cost of the weapons themselves, and the result is a net price increase for essentially that same result.

Trueborn are a weird unit; the only other unit comparable in terms of role is Chaos Chosen. They are designed to be a small unit of Elites whose strength lies in their ability to take lots of special weapons. For a unit like that, there doesn't need to be an incentive to field a larger unit; they are designed to have a small footprint.

There never was an incentive to field more than the minimum size of Scourges either. Even in the old codex, people who did use them only did so in squads of five for the dual Haywire. This is why I support more of a differentiation in role; they are similarly designed units that are clashing against each other in the current codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Wyches

Minimum:

Poisoned Weapons (2+) as stock
Dodge works against Overwatch
Bloodbrides become WS6

A change to Dodge would be the simplest means of making Wyches effective while keeping them in line with the established lore.

"Dodge: models with this special rule gain a 4++ invulnerable save in the Assault Phases of both players' turns."

Yes, the units are more expensive, but in a lot of cases its marginal and is bringing more bodies or more durable transports to help compensate. My goal was similar capability/cost with the addition of more models in play and incentivizing different approaches than the Min/Max. Blaster Trueborn don't need a points drop, externally they were ok. But, internally they were not, nor was there any reason to ever field other unit sizes.

This was something I tried to address with the errata, and the part that was most resisted. I am aware there never was an incentive to ever field more than the minimum, and I saw that as a problem that needed to be addressed. My attempt was to do it in a way that maintained external balance yet increased internal options and reduced auto taking minimum squads. When there is only one way to field a squad, and all other options including larger squad sizes are terrible, its a clear sign of poor internal balance within the unit and or army.

Making one cheaper and the other more expensive for a very similar role doesn't seem to differentiate them much either. And as another poster mentioned, I forgot to include my removal of the "Scourges only" restriction for Haywire and Heat Lances opening up Assault version of Heavy weapons to Warriors and Trueborn. 115pts for 5 Trueborn with 4 Blasters vs 97pts for 7 Trueborn with 2 Blasters and either a Heatlance or Haywire Blaster seems like a solid deal. Well and +5pts required for a tougher transport.

Also, what do you think about adding a rule for DE vehicles saying that damage from an explosion is only S3 to the occupants. I''m trying to find ways for more DE bodies to be on the field and not just be liabilities.


Wyches, I'm definitely adding the 4++ Dodge to apply to Overwatch. It definitely should be that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LostCorsair wrote:
@Zagman: Thank you for taking the time to reply and I want to make something clear about my post (not sure if you took it this way but it is also for anyone else reading the thread), the questions and statements about Psykers and artillery is in no way me trying to ask/wishlist for these things. I like the way Dark Eldar plays and don't want them to become Space Elf Guardsmen.

With that said I'm also seeing where you have made a mistake on or forgot to include in your Errata. If you look at the foot note for Haywire Blasters and Heatlances they are restricted to Scourges only. Unless you amend this with your Errata Trueborn are still unable to take these weapons.

The way our army currently works is to get our hard hitters into melee as quickly as possible and to use our mobility to keep our gunboats and venoms from being charged if we can. This is why the Darklance is almost never taken on Kabalites and Trueborn, any movement and they snapfire so we would rather have any other weapon with range. Blaster Pistols also tend to get ignored as our objective is usually to stay away and the short range means we are definitely getting charged if we want that model to fire.

I believe that these are some of the reasons your errata has met with so much resistance.

I would also like to say that while the drop in price for Sybarite/Deacon upgrades is nice as well as the cost of their upgrades, many of us would rather just give them haywire grenades and keep the Splinter Rifle. As Splinter Rifles are Rapid Fire not assault it is better, at least in my mind, to get those extra shots with the free splinter rifle then plan for a charge at close range that will most likely get them killed.

Additional Note: Splinter Carbines, which are assault but have a shorter range than the Splinter Rifles, are limited to Scourges.

I understood you, no ones wants just different models for the same armies. Each needs its own unique feel and playstyle.

I did forget to remove that footnote!! Thanks for pointing it out. My intent was to open up Heavy Weapon usage to alleviate Anti AV problem and to give alternatives dependency on Blasterborn and Haywire Scourges as for Anti AV.

How does open access for Warriors and True born to the other Heavy Weapon options change things? Having access to assault Heavy Weapons lots of options are opened up. It also makes Scourges less the go to.

The goal was to shift around capabilities without reducing DE's ability and power level on an external basis. I had no desire to drop thier overall power level, the goal was to keep it consistent while bringing lots of things up and to incentivize other unit choices and options. I also wanted to create incentives for not just taking min squads.

Thank you for pointing that out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
6-2-15 Change To

Heavy Weapons
Haywire Blaster: 10pts
Heat Lance: 10pts
Splinter Cannon: 10pts
Dark Lance: 15pts
*Remove "Scourges Only"

6-2-15 Change To

Dodge: Change To "A model with this special rule has a 4+ Invulnerable Save against all Wounds inflicted in the Assault Phase."

A change to Dodge would be the simplest means of making Wyches effective while keeping them in line with the established lore.

"Dodge: models with this special rule gain a 4++ invulnerable save in the Assault Phases of both players' turns."

Can't see how giving Wyches Poisoned weapons is such a massive issue or make unit leaders WS5 and Blood Brides WS6? Both are completely in keeping with the Fluff....and make them good at what thye do.

Because, as bad as they are now, 10ppm units that always wound on 2s and have a 4++ in CC (+FnP usually) would be stupidly OP.

Wraithknight: 300pts
Wargear: Ghostglaive and Scattershield
May exchange Ghostglaive and Scattershield for.... Suncannon and Scattershield: 20pts; Two Heavy Wraithcannons: 40pts
May take up to two of the following in any combination... Scatter Laser: 10pts each; Shuriken Cannon: 10pts each; Scarcannon: 15pts each

I think the points cost might be a bit on the high side for the heavy wraithcannons variant. The two S10 shots with distort are good, but when you compare the shooting from them vs another superheavy (IK), they don't look quite as good. A S9 AP1 large blast with melta can potentially kill lots more infantry than the 2 max that the wraithknight can (although the WK can potentially kill 2 non-adjacent vehicles a turn). And then the IK still has Str D in combat. Certainly agree with the WK going up in points though.

 Cytharai wrote:

Wraithknight: 300pts
Wargear: Ghostglaive and Scattershield
May exchange Ghostglaive and Scattershield for.... Suncannon and Scattershield: 20pts; Two Heavy Wraithcannons: 40pts
May take up to two of the following in any combination... Scatter Laser: 10pts each; Shuriken Cannon: 10pts each; Scarcannon: 15pts each

I think the points cost might be a bit on the high side for the heavy wraithcannons variant. The two S10 shots with distort are good, but when you compare the shooting from them vs another superheavy (IK), they don't look quite as good. A S9 AP1 large blast with melta can potentially kill lots more infantry than the 2 max that the wraithknight can (although the WK can potentially kill 2 non-adjacent vehicles a turn). And then the IK still has Str D in combat. Certainly agree with the WK going up in points though.

Ranged S10 is nothing to sniff at. The previous 240pt Wraithknight was overdurable/undercosted. For 100pts you gain over +50% durability. 150% durability vs wounds, 300% durability vs poison, ID resistance, Stomp, and the ability to shoot target multiple models as well as equip shoulder weaponry. That is a very fair price. And Ranged S10 is very valuable. It costs 100+ point for a single Railhead.

If Eldar really wanted to get lots of S10 shooting they could just go with Vauls D-cannons and get 6 small blasts for around the same cost. Or shuttle some wraithguard around in a wave serpent.

As for durability, I would call IK's comparable (immunity to S6 shooting, has an invuln etc). At 340 points would a Knight be worth it without a reaper chainsword and being armed only with two heavy wraithcannons? Sorry for the IK comparisons, they're my only "mainstream" superheavy to compare to. Last editions Wraithknight was certainly durable, but you could get the same amount of durability out of two Wraithlords for the same points(ish). Wraithlords weren't considered "overdurable" I think, just too slow.

Or if you look at forgeworld superheavies, for 564 points, you can get a barbed heirodule that has 12 S10 shots at AP3 vs two Wraithknights with 4 S10 AP2 distort shots, that cost 120 points more. Sure two gargantuan creatures running around provides bigger threat bubbles around the board and more effective wounds, but much lower damage output.

I'm not arguing that the Wraithknight is costed appropriately right now, I would just prefer that it goes back to non-gargantuan and have a price hike.

 Cytharai wrote:
If Eldar really wanted to get lots of S10 shooting they could just go with Vauls D-cannons and get 6 small blasts for around the same cost. Or shuttle some wraithguard around in a wave serpent.

As for durability, I would call IK's comparable (immunity to S6 shooting, has an invuln etc). At 340 points would a Knight be worth it without a reaper chainsword and being armed only with two heavy wraithcannons? Sorry for the IK comparisons, they're my only "mainstream" superheavy to compare to. Last editions Wraithknight was certainly durable, but you could get the same amount of durability out of two Wraithlords for the same points(ish). Wraithlords weren't considered "overdurable" I think, just too slow.

Or if you look at forgeworld superheavies, for 564 points, you can get a barbed heirodule that has 12 S10 shots at AP3 vs two Wraithknights with 4 S10 AP2 distort shots, that cost 120 points more. Sure two gargantuan creatures running around provides bigger threat bubbles around the board and more effective wounds, but much lower damage output.

I'm not arguing that the Wraithknight is costed appropriately right now, I would just prefer that it goes back to non-gargantuan and have a price hike.

I would have preferred reverting it back as well, cut there was initial opposition to changing the unit type.

The Wraithknight is more durable than an IK though. Take a Meltagun Hit, almost guaranteed a Pen, maybe an Ion Save, and a 1/3 chance of 2-4HP instead of 1. Whereas that same hit only deals an unsaved wound 1/3 of the time barring cover saves. Against AP1/2 weaponry the IKs are significantly more vulnerable. Being immune to S5 does not make up for that difference.

Two GCs instead of one is big, the chance of ID is a factor, as is BS4, AP2, and double durability. I'd call it fairly well balanced actually.

I really think the problem with it last edition was that GW basically made it a SH without giving it SH rules.

Melta VS IK, assuming Melts range (2d6):
Glance: (11%)(1/2) = 0.055
Pen, no boom: (72%)(1/2)(2/3) = 0.24
Pen, plus boom: (72%)(1/2)(1/3)(d3+1) = 0.36
Total: EV of about 2/3 HP per hit.

WK:
Wound: (1/2)(2/3 FnP) = 0.33 Wounds.

So on one of the best anti-vehicle weapons, deployed perfectly, the WK takes twice the shots to kill. With a highly specialized anti-tank weapon.

Outside Malta range?
IK:
Glance: (1/6)(1/2) = 1/12
Pen, no boom: (1/6)(1/2)(2/3) = 1/18
Pen, plus boom: (1/6)(1/2)(1/3)(d3+1) = 1/12
EV of 8/36 HP/shot.

WK is still at 1/3 HP/shot.

Melta outside half range is *more* deadly to a WK by a 3:2 ratio.

And the numbers get much, much worse for AP2/1 weapons. And even more so for lower S.

Sure, Haywire and in-Melta-range Melts melt IKs faster. Anti vehicle weapons will do that.

But Poison and Fleshbane and Rending kill WKs far faster than IKs.

And everything in between - the weapons not specifically to kill heavy vehicles - the WK dies a lot faster.

(Side note - D weapons and Lance weapons also kill the WK much faster than the IK.)

I'm not saying the WK shouldn't cost more. I'm saying that its not as durable as the IK.

But you if you look at something like a daemon prince with a balesword, that's designed to murdilate anything non vehicle in CC, even a gargantuan wraithknight crumples with no real effort. Although I do realize it's much harder for them to do that now with the gotta land wait a turn and then charge rules we have right now. Without D weapons (which I don't want at all) WK are going to go back to about how they were last codex, you bring 1-3, and your enemy just avoids them and kills off the other eldar as much as possible while just eating the two S10 shots a turn.

Edit - maybe it's the black mace I'm thinking of? I dunno I've only ever been on the receiving end of daemon prince instant death so I try to block that from my memory lol

2nd Edit - Friend just brought up a good point, are we still saying that GMC's can get toe-in cover in ruins? Cause that would significantly change my durability standpoint for the WK

Stomp is a gamechanger. You can't really tarpit it anymore, and you can't usually make something it doesn't want to charge. Much like the IK.

Gotta make it to the stomp step though... I've had Harridans get splatted in one round of combat vs a daemon prince

Bharring wrote:
I really think the problem with it last edition was that GW basically made it a SH without giving it SH rules.

Melta VS IK, assuming Melts range (2d6):
Glance: (11%)(1/2) = 0.055
Pen, no boom: (72%)(1/2)(2/3) = 0.24
Pen, plus boom: (72%)(1/2)(1/3)(d3+1) = 0.36
Total: EV of about 2/3 HP per hit.

WK:
Wound: (1/2)(2/3 FnP) = 0.33 Wounds.

So on one of the best anti-vehicle weapons, deployed perfectly, the WK takes twice the shots to kill. With a highly specialized anti-tank weapon.

Outside Malta range?
IK:
Glance: (1/6)(1/2) = 1/12
Pen, no boom: (1/6)(1/2)(2/3) = 1/18
Pen, plus boom: (1/6)(1/2)(1/3)(d3+1) = 1/12
EV of 8/36 HP/shot.

WK is still at 1/3 HP/shot.

Melta outside half range is *more* deadly to a WK by a 3:2 ratio.

And the numbers get much, much worse for AP2/1 weapons. And even more so for lower S.

Sure, Haywire and in-Melta-range Melts melt IKs faster. Anti vehicle weapons will do that.

But Poison and Fleshbane and Rending kill WKs far faster than IKs.

And everything in between - the weapons not specifically to kill heavy vehicles - the WK dies a lot faster.

(Side note - D weapons and Lance weapons also kill the WK much faster than the IK.)

I'm not saying the WK shouldn't cost more. I'm saying that its not as durable as the IK.

All of your data assumes an Ion Shield and none of it assumes a cover save for the WK. Nor does it hold true for other common weapon types. See the data below...




I disagree about the Imperial Knight being more resilient against a broad range of firepower.

But look at a group of Grey Knights, or Force weapon wielders, or other instant death weapons in close combat with an IK vs WK...

 Cytharai wrote:
But look at a group of Grey Knights, or Force weapon wielders, or other instant death weapons in close combat with an IK vs WK...

That is a specific hard counter and not indicative of the game in general. I could just as easily say a unit with T3/S3 with Haywire in CC with a IK vs a WK.... Specific and not widely available hard counters are of little use when balancing a unit.

Kaldor Draigo is pretty common these days. Not trying to be argumentative, it's just that if you use anti-armor weapons vs an IK, might as well use multi wound weapons vs GMC's.

And we're also assuming there's not an AdLance formation on the table... too many variables

You can add Sniper to the S5/Poison grouping vs. WKs.

imo, In a setting where WKs can get toe in cover, they come out on top. If not, IKs and WKs are probably about even to me as a Tau player.

I have to specialize a significant portion of my army to deal with IKs. With WKs I have far more options for doing damage, but it'll take more shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grav weapons (which are pretty ubiquitous, especially with the new SM codex coming out) completely wreck Wraith Knights.

For Melts weapons in Melta range, no cover seems a given.

What I'm seeing is:
S5-8 AP3 or better, advantage IK
S9+ AP2 or better, advantage WK
Low-S rending, advantave IK
Anti-vehicle weapons, advantage WK
Anti-MC weapons, advantage IK

With AP4, S7+ advantage WK, S6- advantage IK

Cytharai wrote:Kaldor Draigo is pretty common these days. Not trying to be argumentative, it's just that if you use anti-armor weapons vs an IK, might as well use multi wound weapons vs GMC's.

And we're also assuming there's not an AdLance formation on the table... too many variables

LighthouseM wrote:You can add Sniper to the S5/Poison grouping vs. WKs.

imo, In a setting where WKs can get toe in cover, they come out on top. If not, IKs and WKs are probably about even to me as a Tau player.

I have to specialize a significant portion of my army to deal with IKs. With WKs I have far more options for doing damage, but it'll take more shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grav weapons (which are pretty ubiquitous, especially with the new SM codex coming out) completely wreck Wraith Knights.

Except those Multiwounds weapons require getting in CC with a 12" move Wraithknihgt.... Melta is a ranged weapon and usually deployed in a way your opponent can't avoid it.

Sure, Driago is rolling around more.... in a build that was made illegal by the Balance Errata. No more Driago/Loth/Tigerius Centstar.

Yeah, sniper would be inthat group as well. I agree, Toe In Cover is a problem, but is it one that can be easily rectified. I'm tempted to add it to the Errata that its 25% cover for MC/GMCs no matter what.

My Tau had no issues destroying Knights, but Wraithknights are very problematic. There is o readily avialable answer to them in the Tau dex. At their new Errated Cost it is less problematic though and much more balanced.

Grav weapons are a terrible weapon, I'm still pissed at GW for adding a vastly superior option and nearly renders other options obsolete.

I mostly agree.

I didn't give enough credit to the difference in cover requirements.

That said, isn't "Automatically wounds on an X" more common than "Automatically glances on X"?

Bharring wrote:
I mostly agree.

I didn't give enough credit to the difference in cover requirements.

That said, isn't "Automatically wounds on an X" more common than "Automatically glances on X"?

Cover is a big difference, even for Melta or other Alpha Strike weapons. Takes nothing to deploy the Wraithknight with a toe in a Ruins for a 4+.... I'm thinking I'll change this rule... but I'm wondering about everything else it changes for other MCs...

Sure they are, but S7 AP4, and High strength low ap and especially Melat/Fusion are vastly more common than any of the other options and those are all the weapons the WK is more resilient against.

Ahh yeah, that's my bad. IOM not having battlebros shenanigans is going to take a while to get used to. In the interest of keeping the thread going for other stuff I'm ok with waiting to playtest some changes and see how it goes on the tabletop.

For toe in cover... maybe make it to where intervening terrain can only grant a 5+ to GMCs at best? Hard to gauge how much is 25% on models as lanky as a WK