Guardians get a 12” range gun but they are so fragile they probably only get one turn of shooting before a hormagaunt eats their face off or a space marine blows them in half with rapid fire Bolter hits. I’d rather see guardians go back to 2nd edition so they could have a 24” lasgun. Or just increase the range of the Shuriken catapult to 24”. Guardians are so weak.
warpedpig wrote: Guardians get a 12” range gun but they are so fragile they probably only get one turn of shooting before a hormagaunt eats their face off or a space marine blows them in half with rapid fire Bolter hits. I’d rather see guardians go back to 2nd edition so they could have a 24” lasgun. Or just increase the range of the Shuriken catapult to 24”. Guardians are so weak.
In theory, the idea is that the Guardian Defenders have a powerful, short-ranged weapon because their battlefield role is solely to defend the Heavy Weapons Platform from enemies who get too close. They're a cheap unit with a small threat radius who shred infantry that dare to enter it. In theory.
In practice, that weapon isn't strong enough to stop or deter anything that gets close, and shooting is so supreme this edition that the T3 5+ save elves will be mown down by any anti-infantry that glances its way unless you blow 1CP on Celestial Shield.
Assault is flat-out worse than Rapid Fire for Aeldari with the 8e Battle Focus, and even within its tight range their gun is essentially a bolter with Rending - which in 8e is much less attractive than just plain old AP-1. And the Heavy Weapons Platform doesn't even extend Battle Focus to Heavy weapons, so the only one you can move and fire without penalty (or Advance and fire at all) is the Shuriken Cannon.
Blow 2CPs (1 for Webway, 1 for Celestial shield) on a 20-man Guardian squad shooting at a Doomed unit and you will see just how "garbage" Shuriken catapults are. Twin-cats on Bikes are good too and gives Spears a decent way to weaken a unit before charging (or shoot a whole through a screen before charging a better target)
Shuricats are fine as-is, you just need to know how to use them. The range is fine considering the base 7" move of our Infantry and Battle Focus. You can't think of Eldar the same way as T'au. And expecting them to have longer range side arms to avoid getting close is a T'au way of thinking They're Guardian DEFENDERS, not Attackers
Although, personally, I'd like see them with the following profile: 12" Str3 Assault 3 AP-1 (remove the AP-3 on 6s) Avenger Cats can be 18", Str4 Assault 3 AP-1 Shuricannons 24" Str5 Assault 4 AP-1
I'd make this change to make them "feel" more like a barrage of tiny razor discs, rather than make the change to "improve" them
Bharring wrote: CWE should never have gotten WWP. Before that, getting into range was a major balancing factor of CWE infantry.
I disagree to a point. All Aeldari use the Webway, even if DE are traditionally the ones with "portable portals". And given how limited the Strat is, it's fine.
Although a better way for CWE and Harlies to access the Webway would be if there was some kind of, IDK, Fortification or something that could be taken to allow units to come in. Too bad GW doesn't make any valid rules for that awesome Webway Gate they make.
But I do agree about the "balancing factor". Having played Eldar since 4E, I remember always struggling to get enough cost effective long range in the list, especially pre-WK. Shuriken weapons as a whole have great synergy with other Eldar abilities (high movement, Battle Focus, Doom, etc), so the short range can easily be forgiven, IMO
I am with Galef, 20 man gardian with 2x shuriken cannons is pretty effeing gross. Even statier if they are ulthwe you can get them hitting on 2's...vs doomed target. It will kill almost anything. at their point value.
Galef wrote: Blow 2CPs (1 for Webway, 1 for Celestial shield) on a 20-man Guardian squad shooting at a Doomed unit and you will see just how "garbage" Shuriken catapults are.
Just to do the math on this... setting aside the cost of Celestial Shield, that's 1 CP and 300 points, requiring a successful Psychic test and a use of a special deployment Stratagem.
In exchange, you get 36 shots, hitting on 3s, for 24 hits. Plus 6 shuriken cannon shots, hitting on 3s, for 4 hits.
24 hits, wounding on 4s against MEQ, for 12 wounds. Reroll those failures for 18 total wounds.
4 hits, wounding on 3s against MEQ, for 2.6 wounds. Reroll those failures for 3.4 wounds.
14 wounds at AP-0 gives you 5 wounds.
7 wounds at AP-3 gives you 6 wounds.
Total Wounds against MEQ = 11
Total Wounds against GEQ = 19
That's impressive!
But conversely, two units of 10 Militarum Tempestus Scions with a Tempestor Prime cost 225 points, can Aerial Drop in without costing me CP, and don't require a roll to use their order.
In exchange, I get 80 shots, hitting on 3s, for 53 hits.
53 hits, wounding 5s against MEQ, for 18 wounds.
18 wounds at AP-2 gives you 12 wounds.
Total Wounds against MEQ = 12
Total Wounds against GEQ = 27
So the Tempestus Scions are stronger, 75 points cheaper, don't cost me any CP, are tougher, and don't require a psychic test. I can't help but feel that maybe you're overegging how devastating that Guardian barrage is, relatively speaking?
Galef wrote: They're Guardian DEFENDERS, not Attackers
Okay, I absolutely agree – but here's the thing. You can't really say "Guardian Defenders are fine if you deep strike them right next to an enemy unit", and also say "they're short range because they're not meant to be aggressive". Those two concepts are diametrically opposed. Tempestus Scions shine when they drop right next to an enemy unit and blast it to pieces because they're special forces who are meant to... drop right next to an enemy unit and blast it to pieces. Guardian Defenders are meant to be militia who huddle around a heavy weapons platform and make it impossible for the enemy to shut down the long range fire by riddling anyone who comes close with very short range bullets. Even when they're functional, the practice doesn't match the theory.
Galef wrote: They're Guardian DEFENDERS, not Attackers
Okay, I absolutely agree – but here's the thing. You can't really say "Guardian Defenders are fine if you deep strike them right next to an enemy unit", and also say "they're short range because they're not meant to be aggressive". Those two concepts are diametrically opposed.
Valid point. Although that's a difference between their fluff and in-game use, which when you play this game long enough, you just kinda get used to those 2 not matching most of the time.
So the short range is to match their fluff as defenders, but there are in-game Strats, abilities and powers that can "bend" them to be suited to an aggressive role. The opposite can be said of Marines post-Bolter Discipline. Marines are meant to be shock troops that get close and break the enemy. But their mediocre durability combined with getting double shots when stationary makes them want to be a gunline unit (despite not begin great at that either)
I'll also add that short range can also help make a unit a low priority on your opponent's radar. So if you have other great unit, short ranged Guardians can be quite the surprise once they, or the enemy gets close.
Which is why I go with you are what the crunch says you are. If guardians only work X way in the game, what the fluff says about them is only a theory.
Martel732 wrote: Which is why I go with you are what the crunch says you are. If guardians only work X way in the game, what the fluff says about them is only a theory.
This philosophy is fine unless you start proposing ways to make that crunch more crunchy despite going against the fluff already. Most of my proposals come from the philosophy that the crunch should reflect the fluff as best as possible, while hopefully also being balanced.
GW has no idea how to make the game play REMOTELY like their own fluff. They do better with non-marine armies, but its still poor. As this thread demonstrates. At least guardians have a non-fluff way to be relevant. Tac marines would kill for that.
Galef wrote: Blow 2CPs (1 for Webway, 1 for Celestial shield) on a 20-man Guardian squad shooting at a Doomed unit and you will see just how "garbage" Shuriken catapults are.
Just to do the math on this... setting aside the cost of Celestial Shield, that's 1 CP and 300 points, requiring a successful Psychic test and a use of a special deployment Stratagem.
In exchange, you get 36 shots, hitting on 3s, for 24 hits. Plus 6 shuriken cannon shots, hitting on 3s, for 4 hits.
24 hits, wounding on 4s against MEQ, for 12 wounds. Reroll those failures for 18 total wounds.
4 hits, wounding on 3s against MEQ, for 2.6 wounds. Reroll those failures for 3.4 wounds.
14 wounds at AP-0 gives you 5 wounds.
7 wounds at AP-3 gives you 6 wounds.
Total Wounds against MEQ = 11
Total Wounds against GEQ = 19
That's impressive!
But conversely, two units of 10 Militarum Tempestus Scions with a Tempestor Prime cost 225 points, can Aerial Drop in without costing me CP, and don't require a roll to use their order.
In exchange, I get 80 shots, hitting on 3s, for 53 hits.
53 hits, wounding 5s against MEQ, for 18 wounds.
18 wounds at AP-2 gives you 12 wounds.
Total Wounds against MEQ = 12
Total Wounds against GEQ = 27
So the Tempestus Scions are stronger, 75 points cheaper, don't cost me any CP, are tougher, and don't require a psychic test. I can't help but feel that maybe you're overegging how devastating that Guardian barrage is, relatively speaking?
Galef wrote: They're Guardian DEFENDERS, not Attackers
Okay, I absolutely agree – but here's the thing. You can't really say "Guardian Defenders are fine if you deep strike them right next to an enemy unit", and also say "they're short range because they're not meant to be aggressive". Those two concepts are diametrically opposed. Tempestus Scions shine when they drop right next to an enemy unit and blast it to pieces because they're special forces who are meant to... drop right next to an enemy unit and blast it to pieces. Guardian Defenders are meant to be militia who huddle around a heavy weapons platform and make it impossible for the enemy to shut down the long range fire by riddling anyone who comes close with very short range bullets. Even when they're functional, the practice doesn't match the theory.
I think you are making some calculations wrong here. Scions weapons can not DS into optimum range. So you're getting half the shots nor do they get the FRFSRF order so really 1/4 the shots. Scions are really good but infantry are so much better there is no point to even bother. Correct me if I am wrong about any of this.
The comparison you should be making is for the cost of those guardians you could get a whole battalion of gaurd practically that puts out 120 shots and gives you 5 CP.
Also doom affects your whole army. You don't need to include it in the calculation.
Martel732 wrote: The plasma guns sure can DS into optimum range.
Yes they can - that's not the math he was using though. They also pay full points for that plasma now and the command squads are limited to 1 per prime (which is basically a 45 point waste). The regular troops can only take 2 plasmas and a pistol now. Still nice because they can deep strike but nothing like it used to be.
I believe they can but 2 5 mans actually has more firepower - also generates more CP. Because they can take 2 pisols instead of 1.
Furthermore I'd much rather spend those points on a tempestor prime vehicle thing. gets 24 str 4 shots and 4 autocannon shots hitting on 3s for like 115? Pretty Amazing unit.
From a fluff perspective, shuriken catapults maybe make more sense in the context of guardians defending Zone Mortalis style internal passageways within a craftworld or hopping out of a wave serpent to spray stuff at close range. And then there's Ulthwe whose guardians are usually depicted as being competent enough as ambush combatants for the gun to sort of make sense.
That said, having 9 guys baby sitting the one dude who's actually shooting the heavy weapon platform does feel really strange. You end up investing a lot of points and bodies into these short ranged guns that feel at-odds with the long-ranged heavy weapon. I suspect the squad was designed that way to better mirror a guardsman unit (making guardians feel more comparable to guardsmen than, for instance, space marines with their 1 special per 5 guys setup). But it looks and feels a bit awkward.
I'd really like for the minimum squad size of guardian defenders to drop to 5. 5 guys with a platform seems less silly than having 9 short ranged guns crowding around the lone guy with the video game controller. Plus, it would drop the cost of a guardian squad to be comparable to that of a guardsman squad with a heavy weapon team. The ranged offense of the guardians would be slightly higher, but their number of ablative wounds would be lower. Which seems like a good crunch representation of the fluff; eldar are better than you, but there are fewer of them.
All that said, I'm not necessarily opposed to guardians returning to having access to lasblasters either. Lowering the squad size just seems like an elegant improvement for fluff, crunch, and aesthetic.
Wyldhunt makes several great points. Defending Craftworld corridors, setting up ambushes and exiting Serpents makes the short range to the Catapult make sense. I also really like the idea of 1 platform per 5 models, although I'd keep the min squad size at 10, just allow 2 platforms per unit no matter the unit size. Maybe you get a 3rd if you have 20 Guardians?
Also regarding the range: Have you ever shot one of those foam disc shooters? If you have you will know why Shurikens has short range.
Galef wrote: Wyldhunt makes several great points. Defending Craftworld corridors, setting up ambushes and exiting Serpents makes the short range to the Catapult make sense.
I also really like the idea of 1 platform per 5 models, although I'd keep the min squad size at 10, just allow 2 platforms per unit no matter the unit size. Maybe you get a 3rd if you have 20 Guardians?
Also regarding the range: Have you ever shot one of those foam disc shooters? If you have you will know why Shurikens has short range.
-
5 man guardians with a platform would be pretty good. I kinda like that idea. Basically - it makes no sense to include anything but cheap cannons to add to squad durability though. It used to have the rule to ignore movement penalties but for some reason that is gone. If they got that back I think 20 man gardian squads would become quite competitive with double starcannons or EML. With an Avatar supporting them. It's actually the way I like to play eldar. As footdar. It's just not competitive right now.
I also really like the idea of 1 platform per 5 models, although I'd keep the min squad size at 10, just allow 2 platforms per unit no matter the unit size. Maybe you get a 3rd if you have 20 Guardians?
I'd be alright 2 heavy platforms at 10 bodies as well. I kind of like the option of taking 5 man squads to fill out CP-generating troop tax slots, but admittedly that starts to step on the avengers' toes.
Galef wrote: Wyldhunt makes several great points. Defending Craftworld corridors, setting up ambushes and exiting Serpents makes the short range to the Catapult make sense.
I also really like the idea of 1 platform per 5 models, although I'd keep the min squad size at 10, just allow 2 platforms per unit no matter the unit size. Maybe you get a 3rd if you have 20 Guardians?
Also regarding the range: Have you ever shot one of those foam disc shooters? If you have you will know why Shurikens has short range.
-
5 man guardians with a platform would be pretty good. I kinda like that idea. Basically - it makes no sense to include anything but cheap cannons to add to squad durability though. It used to have the rule to ignore movement penalties but for some reason that is gone. If they got that back I think 20 man gardian squads would become quite competitive with double starcannons or EML. With an Avatar supporting them. It's actually the way I like to play eldar. As footdar. It's just not competitive right now.
I kind of feel like 20 man guardian squads work. I field non-shuriken cannon platforms with mine because it's simply what I have modeled. they do okay despite the to-hit penalties; any damage they do is kind of found money. It's the 10 man squads that feel awkward to me. They're too expensive for me to feel good about using them as chaff or CP generators. They have too many points wrapped up in 12" guns for me to feel good about them as a long-ranged heavy weapon squad. But 20 man squads? Those work. Heck, Quicken a blob of the little guys and give them some mild psychic and/or stratagem support and they're kind of awesome.
Glad the 5 man squad idea seems to be well-received! <3
I also really like the idea of 1 platform per 5 models, although I'd keep the min squad size at 10, just allow 2 platforms per unit no matter the unit size. Maybe you get a 3rd if you have 20 Guardians?
I'd be alright 2 heavy platforms at 10 bodies as well. I kind of like the option of taking 5 man squads to fill out CP-generating troop tax slots, but admittedly that starts to step on the avengers' toes.
I like the idea of cheap 5-man units to fill out CP taxes too. But that's why I wouldn't want it to happen. Avengers would cease to exist at that point, not to mention the cheese-crying Eldar haters would lob at us
I think 2 platforms in min 10-elf units is the right balance. Gives you more weapons per body, but still requires the bodies
I haven't played as Eldar in a very long time, (2nd/3rd edition) but back then, Guardians came armed with lasguns with 24" range and Dire Avengers were armed with the superior Shuriken Catapult (which IIRC was also 24" range, and had almost the same stats as a storm bolter)
I'm surprised that Guardians don't have an option for a normal troop weapon at longer range. I say bring back the option for a lasgun equivalent. (call it something else if you prefer).
Aash wrote: I haven't played as Eldar in a very long time, (2nd/3rd edition) but back then, Guardians came armed with lasguns with 24" range and Dire Avengers were armed with the superior Shuriken Catapult (which IIRC was also 24" range, and had almost the same stats as a storm bolter)
I'm surprised that Guardians don't have an option for a normal troop weapon at longer range. I say bring back the option for a lasgun equivalent. (call it something else if you prefer).
Swooping Hawks have Lasblasters, so they are still around. As for longer ranged Troop weapons; Dire Avengers and Rangers are Troops
I believe they can but 2 5 mans actually has more firepower - also generates more CP. Because they can take 2 pisols instead of 1.
Furthermore I'd much rather spend those points on a tempestor prime vehicle thing. gets 24 str 4 shots and 4 autocannon shots hitting on 3s for like 115? Pretty Amazing unit.
It's about the same firepower. Keep in mind the Sergeant doesn't get a Hotshot, which affects the math in Rapid Fire range and orders efficiency.
So the only positive thing I really read about the guardians and shuriken catapults was
You need to use multiple CP. You need psychic power. You need strategems. And even then you don't do that impressive of damage. And the next turn they all get totally destroyed by the return fire or charge. One trick pony that isn't even that great. What a waste.
Ruling - Shuriken Catapults are Garbage.
If they had 24" range they would be pretty solid. That's all it would take. In this game at 12 or even 18 inches youre only gonna get 1 round of shooting off before the enemy returns fire or charges your weak guardians and utterly destroys them.
Guardians suck. You have to spend BOATLOADS of CP and spells to make them worth a gak.
Boy, if that pisses you off...wait till you consider...almost all of the Aspect Warriors. Or Storm Guardians...or Support Weapon Platforms...or Wraithknights...or Phoenix Lords...
The Eldar have a reputation as being super competitive and solid, but that ignores the 1/3 to 1/2 of the codex which is more or less garbage (when compared to other armies/stratagems). Thus Eldar players are more or less not allowed to lament how bad units are because of how good a handful of units in the army are.
And almost every single unit in the book is dependent on Psychic buffs to become really effective. There are a few exceptions, and these are what you see in 90% of Eldar related tournament lists.
I have relegated my Guardians to the above conditions: 1) stuck in a building with a platform defending a location... or 2) Deep Striking suicide bomb.
PS: And yes, 8th is more or less entirely predicated on: Stratagems, auras, buffs, and spells...almost nothing operates without them, a fundamental weakness of the game in my opinion.
The whole 'designed to protect craftworld corridors' thing, is a furfy.
Craftworlds are full of large open spaces, not space hulk claustrophobic corridors.
Also, if GW hadn't been pleasuring space marines from every angle imaginable, we'd have just as wide a variety of eldar weapon options and loadouts. How many freaking bolt gun options do marines get now? SOmething for every occasion.
20 years ago, marines had 1 boltgun. Until they were retconned not to.
Ergo, eldar can have a dozen different shuriken weapon options, not just the single worst decision GW has made since they switched from 2nd ed.
in 1st and second ed, the shuriken catapult had the following profile:
24" S 4 ASM -2 Sustained fire 1 dice
It was actually better than a storm bolter (better penetration).
Besides this is the glaringly ridiculous notion that an army that has leaders that can see the future somehow can't see their soldiers being cut down in tissue paper with slingshots - especially when they can make 3+ armour and better guns. You know - a race that actually doesn't want its people to die like they keep saying they don't....
It is trivially easy to apply the 'make a million options' approach GW has done to marines, to eldar. The fluff is no way an impediment to this - it's never stopped them retroactively inventing whole new units, technologies and weapons that have 'always been there' for the Imperium.
Shuriken catapult
12" Assault 3 S4 AP-1
Avenger Catapult
18" Assault 2 S4 AP-1 (Aspect ability 6 to wound is AP-3)
There is also the option to have specialist ammunition as well - psychically charged explosive shuriken, Ld draining rounds, neurotoxic rounds (ala shrieker ammo), shuirken penetrators etc.
Eldar units might survive longer if they were able to make fall back moves in the melee phase whether in combat or not. So your guardians could get in, shoot, the run back again.
I can make up eldar guns all day - or any guns for that matter. GW doesn't seem to care if it steals xenos army distinctiveness to make a marine version, so why should we care in reverse?
Standard cats should be 18" range and avengers should be 24". Then they would basically be fine. Catapult range being reduced to 12" in 3rd edition was such a terrible decision and it's plagued them ever since.
Orbei wrote: Standard cats should be 18" range and avengers should be 24". Then they would basically be fine. Catapult range being reduced to 12" in 3rd edition was such a terrible decision and it's plagued them ever since.
I'd only be ok with that if the were RapidFire. RF1 if we keep Str4, or RF2 if we drop to Str3.
It would seem weird to not be assault, but it still works with Battle Focus
Actually, 18" RF2 Str3 Ap-1 Shuricats (24" for Avengers) would be pretty cool. Would allow them to get 2 shots at 18 or 4 shots at 9".
But to balance those extra shots, we need Str3. It actually never made sense to me that molecule thick razor discs have the same punching power as explosive rocket propelled shells (bolters)
warpedpig wrote: The edge is a molecule thick. Not the entire disc
No, it's the whole disc. The ammunition is literally a solid cylinder of whatever they make them out of and the gun uses gravity manipulation to shear off molocule thin slices and launch them at the target, it wouldn't work if those shurikan rounds weren't a constant thickness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warpedpig wrote: So the only positive thing I really read about the guardians and shuriken catapults was
You need to use multiple CP. You need psychic power. You need strategems. And even then you don't do that impressive of damage. And the next turn they all get totally destroyed by the return fire or charge. One trick pony that isn't even that great. What a waste.
Ruling - Shuriken Catapults are Garbage.
If they had 24" range they would be pretty solid. That's all it would take. In this game at 12 or even 18 inches youre only gonna get 1 round of shooting off before the enemy returns fire or charges your weak guardians and utterly rapes them.
Guardians suck. You have to spend BOATLOADS of CP and spells to make them worth a gak.
It's almost like you don't know how the army works. The entire codex is a collection of mostly terrible and mediocre units with a few good and a couple really strong choices backed up by some of the most powerful stratagems and psychic powers in the game. Yes, they look aweful at first glance but get 40 Guardians deep striking in, one unit can be hitting on 3's rerolling, the other unit can be hitting on 2's (re-rolling 1's with a nearby autarch) with both of them re-rolling all failed wounds against a single target which can also be at -1 to it's save. At that point anything short of a Knight is in trouble.
Galef wrote: They're Guardian DEFENDERS, not Attackers
Okay, I absolutely agree – but here's the thing. You can't really say "Guardian Defenders are fine if you deep strike them right next to an enemy unit", and also say "they're short range because they're not meant to be aggressive". Those two concepts are diametrically opposed.
Valid point. Although that's a difference between their fluff and in-game use, which when you play this game long enough, you just kinda get used to those 2 not matching most of the time. (...) The opposite can be said of Marines post-Bolter Discipline. Marines are meant to be shock troops that get close and break the enemy. But their mediocre durability combined with getting double shots when stationary makes them want to be a gunline unit (despite not begin great at that either)
Yes, but I'd rather fix units to match their role and effectiveness in the fluff.
For example, Bolter Discipline gives Marines the ability to fire twice at long range if they stand still. I dislike this because it:
Rewards standing still at long range, which is the opposite of what Marines should do
Rewards standing still at long range, which is the opposite of what Rapid Fire weapons should do
Rewards standing still at long range, which is the opposite of an interesting game
Does not also improve firing at short range, which does not encourage what Marines should do
That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't make Marines better at getting in close.
For example, Bolter Discipline could cause Marines to fire an additional shot at the same target when they're within half range, meaning a basic boltgun fires 3 shots per model within 12". That's a clear incentive to move in and shoot.
For example, Bolter Discipline could cause Marines to fire an additional shot at the same target when they're within half range, meaning a basic boltgun fires 3 shots per model within 12". That's a clear incentive to move in and shoot.
yeah that's basically what I suggested to GW to make the Bolter Discipline into when they asked for feedback. It should have been an extra shot if stationary or at half range in addition to double shots at half. So 2 shots if stationary outside 12" or 3 shots within 12". Still rewards being stationary, but you always get more shots for being closer.
For Shuricats to match their fluff, they really need more shots at lower strength.
Galef wrote: yeah that's basically what I suggested to GW to make the Bolter Discipline into when they asked for feedback. It should have been an extra shot if stationary or at half range in addition to double shots at half. So 2 shots if stationary outside 12" or 3 shots within 12". Still rewards being stationary, but you always get more shots for being closer.
For Shuricats to match their fluff, they really need more shots at lower strength.
Pretty much!
So if you want Guardian Defenders to be... well, Defenders, units who hang out near a powerful weapons platform and protect them from attackers, what do you need? Well, you need to:
Make Guardians themselves ineffective at long range, as they're not "meant" to be the long-range threat of their unit.
Discourage Guardians from actively venturing into their effective range, as they're not "meant" to seek out fights, but use their guns as a defensive weapon.
Encourage the enemy to attack the Guardians within their effective range, instead of sniping them at a distance.
Encourage Guardians to fight and run rather than just running, because they're described as making a "fighting retreat".
Therefore, the Heavy Weapon Platforms need to be very powerful at long range, to encourage the enemy to shut them down and to encourage you to keep them far off; a glorified Heavy Weapons Team isn't going to cut it. They also need to be considerably more powerful if they don't move, to discourage you from deliberately moving into shuriken range and just eating the -1 to hit penalty on the HWP. Guardians also need to be harder to kill at range than up close, to encourage the enemy to move into their effective attack range. So let's take a crack at that:
Shuriken Catapult: Range 12", Assault 2, Strength 3, AP 0, Abilities: Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, that hit is resolved with an AP of -3 instead of 0.
Crewed Weapon: A Heavy Weapon Platform cannot fire its ranged weapon. Instead, one Guardian from the same unit that is within 3" can operate the platform, shooting the ranged weapon as though it was its own. A Guardian that operates a Heavy Weapon Platform cannot shoot any other weapons that phase.
Warriors of Last Resort: If this unit remains stationary or moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current Move characteristic), it can shoot twice in the following Shooting phase, and until the start of your next turn it successfully hits on a roll of 5 or 6 when firing Overwatch, instead of only 6. A unit that arrives as reinforcements is considered to have moved its full Move distance.
Bubble Shield: A unit that includes one or more Heavy Weapon Platforms has a 5+ invulnerable save against shooting attacks made by models that are more than 12" away.
And hell, let's add:
Shuriken's Wail (1 CP)
Those who don the mask of the Guardian are oft-consumed by the incomparable thrill and exhilarating stakes of battle, entering a trance of exquisite warfare. Use this Stratagem in your Shooting phase. Choose a GUARDIAN DEFENDER unit from your army that is within 1" of an enemy unit. In this phase, models in that unit can fire their shuriken catapults as if they had the Pistol 2 Type.
Nth-Dimensional Alert (2 CP)
The Craftsworlds of the Eldar are proofed against extramaterial incursions, and Guardian Defenders are equipped with precise spatial dowsing rods to detect and repel such unwelcome guests. Use this Stratagem immediately after your opponent sets up a unit that is arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements within 12" of one of your GUARDIAN DEFENDER units. Your unit can immediately shoot at that enemy unit as if it were the Shooting phase, but you must subtract 1 from all the resulting hit rolls.
Then drop Guardian Defenders down to 7 points each. Or just eliminate the base cost of the Heavy Weapon Platform, either works.
Now a unit of 10 Guardians with an Aeldari Missile Launcher costs about twice as much as a unit of 10 Infantry with a Missile Launcher, but without considering orders it massively outperforms them (4x Marine casualties) at extreme range (36-48") if it doesn't move, somewhat outperforms them (1.5x Marine casualties) at mid-range (18-24") if it doesn't move, and leaves them utterly in the dirt (6x Marine casualties) at short range (12"). Except if it actually moves, at which point its effectiveness drops by more than half, to below (0.75x) the regular Infantry squad at mid-range and barely above them at extreme range.
Now, this might be too powerful, but the end result is pretty clear - Guardians can't shoot at long range except for their weapons platforms, and they shoot much better when they don't move. Therefore, don't move them and instead rely on their weapons platforms. Guardians are tougher to kill at long range, and their long-range guns are powerful, so the enemy would be better off getting in close. And when someone does get in close, Guardians can shred them. The implementation might be too strong - you might want to limit the "firing twice" to the Heavy Weapons Platform, in the style of Grinding Advance, for example - but the intent is clear.
warpedpig wrote: Just give guardian defenders lasguns like older editions.
...I mean, at that point aren't they just Guard Infantry? Who trade Orders for having a worse version of Forwards, for the Emperor! active all the time? And don't get special weapons?
I like the idea of making guardian heavy weapon platforms the focus of the unit and giving them corresponding special rules.
However I do think that you'd give them long range weapons while guarding them - to me it doesn't make sense to give them pistols to protect things with.
If you can stop a charge 24" away, then why would you force them to wait until death is breathing down their neck before they can defend themselves?
What I think I would do is actually explore the militia structure of the eldar a little more, and provide a range of guardian unit types.
5 man heavy weapon teams could be purchased as an addon to a troops unit, but not gain the ability to guard an objective.
You could have storm guardians as the offensive guardian units, and they can choose melee, or short range shuriken weapons and special weapons to actually 'storm' the enemy - perhaps also with a standard webway assault option. IMO if they are storming the enemy, they would also have better armour or protection, like ablative wounds (W2 5+ save for example).
Support weapon battery guardians should be in squads of 5 as well, with the remaining 3 troops carrying long range las rifles etc. Also with that anti shooting shield.
There are so many different ways to revamp the eldar, I find it really frustrating that none of the creativity marines get is sent the way of the eldar.
If I was rewriting the eldar army I would do what I've outlined above and:
Make aspects smaller units - 3-6, with insanely good skills and weapons. Elite of the elite.
Make the above guardian milita the core of the army, with dire avengers the special forces spearhead supported by storm guardians.
And the other aspects as specialist insurgent units designed to get in, annihilate whatever their target is, and then escape intact.
The old BFG rules that allowed the eldar to move twice might be useful here - giving all eldar the ability to fallback in the melee phase whether fighting or not.
Dart in and out.
Andy Chambers asked Jervis to make the BFG eldar 'gittish', and imo no truer a representation of the eldar has existed.
Hellebore wrote: I like the idea of making guardian heavy weapon platforms the focus of the unit and giving them corresponding special rules.
However I do think that you'd give them long range weapons while guarding them - to me it doesn't make sense to give them pistols to protect things with.
If you can stop a charge 24" away, then why would you force them to wait until death is breathing down their neck before they can defend themselves?
What I think I would do is actually explore the militia structure of the eldar a little more, and provide a range of guardian unit types.
5 man heavy weapon teams could be purchased as an addon to a troops unit, but not gain the ability to guard an objective.
You could have storm guardians as the offensive guardian units, and they can choose melee, or short range shuriken weapons and special weapons to actually 'storm' the enemy - perhaps also with a standard webway assault option. IMO if they are storming the enemy, they would also have better armour or protection, like ablative wounds (W2 5+ save for example).
Support weapon battery guardians should be in squads of 5 as well, with the remaining 3 troops carrying long range las rifles etc. Also with that anti shooting shield.
There are so many different ways to revamp the eldar, I find it really frustrating that none of the creativity marines get is sent the way of the eldar.
If I was rewriting the eldar army I would do what I've outlined above and:
Make aspects smaller units - 3-6, with insanely good skills and weapons. Elite of the elite.
Make the above guardian milita the core of the army, with dire avengers the special forces spearhead supported by storm guardians.
And the other aspects as specialist insurgent units designed to get in, annihilate whatever their target is, and then escape intact.
The old BFG rules that allowed the eldar to move twice might be useful here - giving all eldar the ability to fallback in the melee phase whether fighting or not.
Dart in and out.
Andy Chambers asked Jervis to make the BFG eldar 'gittish', and imo no truer a representation of the eldar has existed.
And how much would these hyper elite models cost, pray tell?
Guardians are ok as they rules wise. I have come around from thinking the range is too short. I think it fits fluff weirdly enough. But... but... they need to be 6pts or the platform cost needs to be removed to be comparable to their counterparts in other dexes. I would argue Avenger should be 24" because they are essentially full time aspect warriors so makes sense they'd have much better gear.
As long as IG are 4 and cultists are 5 (with orders and strats available... which you don't have to roll for unlike psychic powers) Guardians being 8pts is laughable...
Argive wrote: As long as IG are 4 and cultists are 5 (with orders and strats available... which you don't have to roll for unlike psychic powers) Guardians being 8pts is laughable...
This is very true. One thing I'd be happy for is a decrease in WS to 4+ along with a points reduction. Defenders being 4+/3+ and stormies being 3+/4+ seems more appropriate to me, honestly.
... as much is required to reflect their rules? As should be true for all units in the game?
You say like I'm implying they should also be cheap or something?
Eldar are a hyper advanced, future reading, super skilled, dying race that puts populace survival over all else.
If they played like they are described, they'd probably be nothing but armies of war walkers and vypers - lots of heavy weapons with very few eldar actually in danger of being killed.
Argive wrote: As long as IG are 4 and cultists are 5 (with orders and strats available... which you don't have to roll for unlike psychic powers) Guardians being 8pts is laughable...
This is very true. One thing I'd be happy for is a decrease in WS to 4+ along with a points reduction. Defenders being 4+/3+ and stormies being 3+/4+ seems more appropriate to me, honestly.
Hellebore wrote: I like the idea of making guardian heavy weapon platforms the focus of the unit and giving them corresponding special rules.
However I do think that you'd give them long range weapons while guarding them - to me it doesn't make sense to give them pistols to protect things with.
If you can stop a charge 24" away, then why would you force them to wait until death is breathing down their neck before they can defend themselves?
Because long range guns are crap for defending themselves. Guardians aren't meant to shoot people, or to get shot in turn - they're a militia of last resort, on the table solely to protect and operate the HWP. So the Craftworlds park them next to the big guns, hand them a monomolecular shotgun with "get out of my face" carved on the barrel, and tell them to blow away anyone who gets close.
(and in my proposal the big guns have forcefields so they're not just blown away at range, but that's another matter)
Argive wrote: Guardians are ok as they rules wise. I have come around from thinking the range is too short. I think it fits fluff weirdly enough. But... but... they need to be 6pts or the platform cost needs to be removed to be comparable to their counterparts in other dexes. I would argue Avenger should be 24" because they are essentially full time aspect warriors so makes sense they'd have much better gear.
As long as IG are 4 and cultists are 5 (with orders and strats available... which you don't have to roll for unlike psychic powers) Guardians being 8pts is laughable...
I really don't recomend bringing up Cultists in this exemple. It might be a bit counterproductive to your cause.
Or do you also want to lose all traits?
Access to nearly all stratagems. And get 1 time use instead?
And worse armor?
and just generaly worse stats and morale?
Orbei wrote: This is very true. One thing I'd be happy for is a decrease in WS to 4+ along with a points reduction. Defenders being 4+/3+ and stormies being 3+/4+ seems more appropriate to me, honestly.
And this would further differentiate Defenders from Stormies, which IMO is needed. Currently the only difference is in their wargear, so they could very well share the same Datasheet.
WS4+ Defenders and BS4+ Stormies gives them more of a "civilian" feel.
Martel732 wrote: With such a life span, I think that every eldar would significantly better than guardsmen or maybe even marines at fighting. There are no "civilians".
While true, I think you could apply the old "if you don't use it, you lose it" adage. Even if a Defender was a melee Aspect Warrior in a previous Path, it isn't using those skills as a Defender (and given that Aspects use a psychological "war-mask" to compartmentalize those skills away from the rest of their psyche, it makes perfect sense).
It would just be one way to do multiple thing: A) Differentiate Defenders from Stormies B) Call back to prior editions in which all Guardian-type units hit on 4+ instead of 3+ C) Give further reason to drop the points cost of Defenders to 7ppm
Martel732 wrote: With such a life span, I think that every eldar would significantly better than guardsmen or maybe even marines at fighting. There are no "civilians".
Yep - you've got it.
In marine fluff sources they are touted as being equal to you're average eldar in terms of speed and accuracy. Why? Better biology - in both cases.
Martel732 wrote: With such a life span, I think that every eldar would significantly better than guardsmen or maybe even marines at fighting. There are no "civilians".
While true, I think you could apply the old "if you don't use it, you lose it" adage. Even if a Defender was a melee Aspect Warrior in a previous Path, it isn't using those skills as a Defender (and given that Aspects use a psychological "war-mask" to compartmentalize those skills away from the rest of their psyche, it makes perfect sense).
It would just be one way to do multiple thing:
A) Differentiate Defenders from Stormies
B) Call back to prior editions in which all Guardian-type units hit on 4+ instead of 3+
C) Give further reason to drop the points cost of Defenders to 7ppm
-
In all honesty guardians already deserve a price drop compared to a fire warrior. Sure fire warriors hit on 4's but they have a vastly superior weapon and a 4+ save (which is better than +1 to hit IMO) and the melle ability is negligible - pretty much made up for but the fact tau have supporting fire. They should realistically be the same cost OR the guardian should be cheaper.
Guardians should hit on 3's - and stormies are 1 point cheaper so they are differentiated. They can also take specials like fusions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Clearly though, IG are the fastest because a guy is yelling at them to go faster.
You are what the crunch says you are. Everything else is fanboi fantasizing.
Whats funny is if you go to a fantasy setting and talk about a human being faster than an elf....people will be like...what?
If an Eldar was an Aspect, now isn't, it's left the path.
If the Eldar couldn't give up the Path, and stop using it's teachings, then it didn't leave the Path. Those who can't become Exarchs - that's what getting Lost on the Path means.
So Eldar who were former Aspects will remember some training, but won't be fully-trained fully-capable Aspect Warriors.
As for weapons, CWE focuses on perfection, not excess. Generally, either the units are hitting hard and doing their things or are completely ineffective. They don't do attrition/standoffs, where you hold your own at range. They don't have the numbers to do it.
CWE will try to either be nearly impossible to touch but can't engage effectively (in a Serpent, out of LOS, etc), or entirely committed and effective. This is part of their focus on perfection. They don't trade shots with other factions. They will remain out of reach, until the moment they're ready to strike. Once they're ready to strike, they hit harder than anyone else. Executed perfectly, there's nothing left to retaliate.
The LasBlaster - and other rifles - are used to do reasonable damage in a reasonable engagement in most circumstances. It's a weapon engineered for versatility. It can do most jobs reasonably. But it's not the perfect tool for the perfect execution of a maneuver.
They don't send Guardians into a pitched battle to trade shots with the enemy. They send them to follow the plans of the Autarchs or the schemes of the Seers. These plans won't expose them to a pitched battle where a rifle is better. They'll use the Guardians in carefully planned ambushes, or desperate close quarters defense of something. Or to leverage tools like a heavy weapons platform. Firing a couple extra incidental rifle shots at something isn't going to help; the Seers or Autarchs have careful plans to handle those targets anyways. But the increased impact at close range often is going to help.
So the Shuriken Catapault is either a sidearm or a shotgun. It's not a standoff weapon. Such a weapon makes much more sense than an actual rifle.
My ideal:
-Guardians can take LasBlasters (not free)
--LasBlasters go back to RF2 (added benefit - Hawks need to be within 12" for full damage, forcing Aspect hosts to fight closer)
-Guardians can take CCW/Pistol (Catapults cost 1ppm, so it'd be a tradeoff)
-Guardians can take HWP *or* specials (but not both)
-Aeldari Blade gains the same rule as Chainsword (to reduce bloat - they can replace them with Chainswords for free already)
This would simplify the Guardian unit choice, while adding a *lot* of flexibility.
The Marine exists to fight. It's designed to fight. Engineered to fight. Equipped to fight. Trained to fight.
An Eldar Guardian exists to not fight. It's a civilian. It's planned on writing a poem. Or feeding the people. Or studying physics. It has chosen not to take a Path of War. It's fighting because it - and it's Craftworld - has no better option.
So Marines in excess of 0 have the numbers to fight.
I think the Eldar need to take some notes from the Soviet Union about how to fight existential battles.
Just because marines exist to fight doesn't mean they have the numbers to do anything. The royal dutch marines are the most elite force on the planet. What do they amount to?
"Ok, Civie. Here's a shotgun. Go that way. Try not to die."
Guardians on the battlefield generally *are* taking a note from the Red Army and their defense of Stalingrad. They can't equip every Guardian with a walking heavy weapons platform (WarWalker) or top-shelf battletank/APC (Serpent). Guardians aren't given Catapaults because they'd rather have 10 Catapault-slinging doods than 10 WarWalkers or Serpents. They're given Catapaults because that's what they have resources to give them. The ASC is clearly the better weapon. So is the MeltaGun. LasBlaster. But those cost more resources.
Bharring wrote: "Ok, Civie. Here's a shotgun. Go that way. Try not to die."
Guardians on the battlefield generally *are* taking a note from the Red Army and their defense of Stalingrad. They can't equip every Guardian with a walking heavy weapons platform (WarWalker) or top-shelf battletank/APC (Serpent). Guardians aren't given Catapaults because they'd rather have 10 Catapault-slinging doods than 10 WarWalkers or Serpents. They're given Catapaults because that's what they have resources to give them. The ASC is clearly the better weapon. So is the MeltaGun. LasBlaster. But those cost more resources.
How do they not have enough production with high tech automation NOT to equip a shrinking population? I don't think any infantry equipment really consumes significant resources in the scheme of things. So Melta and lasblaster away.
The difference is that Zhukov was just buying time with what he had at the moment while he built a real army. The Eldar have the time to turn guardians into a real military, but GW is stuck with their concepts.
Martel732 wrote: I think the Eldar need to take some notes from the Soviet Union about how to fight existential battles.
Just because marines exist to fight doesn't mean they have the numbers to do anything. The royal dutch marines are the most elite force on the planet. What do they amount to?
That's why they're the Angels, not the Shield. If our world were being overrun by unknowable horrors, we'd try to fight it back.
Ten Power Armored super-equipped supersoldiers will only do so much in battle directly. But if we're trying to hold the line against the horrors, and those guys drop in, shining Power Armor steadily moving forward as exemplars, the effect they have on the rest of the line is going to do more than what those ten guys will do. The rest of us are more likely to hold, not because they've taken the heat off, but because they've given us hope. They've given us reason to believe. We are fighting tooth and nail with devils, but Angels have arrived. They fight with us. We fight on.
In a pitched battle, Marines do more as Angels of the Emperor than they do as combatants.
And before you say "So what", remember things like Alexander's Companions, or the USS Johnston in WWII.
Bharring wrote: "Ok, Civie. Here's a shotgun. Go that way. Try not to die."
Guardians on the battlefield generally *are* taking a note from the Red Army and their defense of Stalingrad. They can't equip every Guardian with a walking heavy weapons platform (WarWalker) or top-shelf battletank/APC (Serpent). Guardians aren't given Catapaults because they'd rather have 10 Catapault-slinging doods than 10 WarWalkers or Serpents. They're given Catapaults because that's what they have resources to give them. The ASC is clearly the better weapon. So is the MeltaGun. LasBlaster. But those cost more resources.
How do they not have enough production with high tech automation NOT to equip a shrinking population? I don't think any infantry equipment really consumes significant resources in the scheme of things. So Melta and lasblaster away.
The difference is that Zhukov was just buying time with what he had at the moment while he built a real army. The Eldar have the time to turn guardians into a real military, but GW is stuck with their concepts.
How would the Eldar turn their Guardians into a "real military"? Sure, they could drill them. But then nobody's left to build or equip their Shuriken Catapaults. Their population is dwindling, but the threats they face are not.
Zhukov was defending one city in eastern Russia. The Eldar's position is more similar to fighting a Stalingrad in every city. The rest of Russia could put together a force, and he could buy time to build that force. But the rest of the Craftworld is wholly invested in the immediate conflicts.
Yeah, I'm still going with "so what". Because those ten guys get smoked almost instantly by the gak running around in 40K. I know they don't in bolter porn, but that's not really how wars work at all.
If those horrors are equipped with powerful artillery or energy weapons, your whole line turns into jelly or a hiroshima burn, marines included.
Build. Your. Equipment. With. Robots. 21st century humans do it. Eldar can certainly do it.
A Melta Gun might not be a significant expendature compared to a Dragon Cruiser, but then again neither is a War Walker. But they add up. Even Marines are afforded only a limited number of Melta Guns. Remember Guardians are civilians - if the very people who would build the Melta Guns are needed on the battlefield, they don't have time to produce Melta Guns.
It's like the Bread vs Guns argument. Except instead of Bread, it's "Not getting erradicated". It's hard to make an economic argument that you should make guns instead of not being erradicated.
Do they REALLY add up in the scheme of things? I know when playing as WWII US or UK, small arms are a pretty small fraction of production. They easily make so many they can give them away to places like Greece or Yugoslavia.
As I said, build with robots. And maybe use some robot combatants while you are it.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, I'm still going with "so what". Because those ten guys get smoked almost instantly by the gak running around in 40K.
They get smoked if they get shot at. That's why they don't fight pitched battles. They don't get smoked if they don't get shot at.
A better gun doesn't change that.
Pretend you give every one a Lasblaster. They still get smoked if they get shot at. They do slightly more damage while getting shot at, but still get smoked. But don't do anything else better. While costing more to produce.
Wouldn't it be better to use a Heavy platform if you need the range?
Wouldn't it be better to use a tank to trade shots with enemy infantry?
Pretend you give every one a Melta Gun. They still get smoked if they get shot at. They're still only useful in carefully executed plans. They now do much worse at handling infantry or light targets at the same range, but can take on very heavy targets better. But you have far fewer of them.
Wouldn't it be better to use your Fire Dragons or similar to handle the heavy targets? You have fewer of them, but targets heavy enough to need them are rare.
Wouldn't it be better, if you didn't have enough Fire Dragons, to have a specialist anti-Tank Guardian squad with a couple Meltas, than replace all Guardians with Melta Guardians? This way, you have units for engaging Infantry, and units for engaging Tanks.
The primary advantage of having fewer Guardians but giving them that "better weapon" is that they are more versatile. Which means they can play an unintentional role better, but their intended role worse. When you can't control the flow of battle, that's super awesome. But when your only way to win a battle is to flawlessly execute an intricate plan, not so much. In that case, you need every unit to be as good as possible at a *very specific* role. Any ability to do anything else is of marginal value. So very specific weaponry is better.
This is why, traditionally, it makes sense for Eldar to use Aspect Warriors and Marines to use Squads with a Special and Heavy. Eldar only win if they can leverage each unit perfectly. A Fire Dragon unit trading shots with Marines loses. A Swooping Hawk unit faced with a Predator loses. Marines, on the other hand, win by having all the tools and leveraging each one maximally. So the squad trades Boltgun fire with Dire Avengers, while putting a Melta Gun into a Wraithlord, and firing a Missile at the Fire Prism downrange.
You're viewing Eldar ways of war and judging it based on Humanities strengths and weaknesses. They aren't human. They can do some things humans can't, and can't do some things humans can.
I know they don't in bolter porn, but that's not really how wars work at all.
If those horrors are equipped with powerful artillery or energy weapons, your whole line turns into jelly or a hiroshima burn, marines included.
Sure, if the horrors have unlimited power. If the horrors are so strong that there's nothing that amount of resources can do to turn the tide, then it doesn't matter what you spend those resources on. But if those resources can make the difference, then morale is a concern that should be addressed.
Build. Your. Equipment. With. Robots. 21st century humans do it.
40k humans tried it. It went really, really badly.
Eldar can certainly do it.
They likely do. But who builds the robots? Probably robots. But somewhere down the chain, not-robots.
And who programs them? Who tells them how to function? What to do?
Who decides how many? Who decides distribution? Allocation?
Where do raw resources come from?
"Robots" are just tools. They only increase productivity, they don't remove the human(oid) element. And they certainly don't remove economic constraints. Resources are still limited, you just get a lot more per person-hour.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Do they REALLY add up in the scheme of things? I know when playing as WWII US or UK, small arms are a pretty small fraction of production. They easily make so many they can give them away to places like Greece or Yugoslavia.
Even if it adds up to a small fraction, one small arm can still cost ten times what another one would. If a MG cost 10x a Shuriken Catapault, would you take a single MG Guardian and ten unarmed civies or 10 Catapault Guardians? When not looking for someone to pop tanks?
As I said, build with robots.
Where do you get the assumption that manual labor is necessarily a major part of the cost?
And maybe use some robot combatants while you are it.
They did. The Empire fell. They don't have the resources to do that, now. Clearly, they'd want to - but wishing doesn't just make it so.
"40k humans tried it. It went really, really badly. "
Only because GW mindlessly ripped off Dune. Even in Dune, IX actually saved the day in the long run. GW kinda missed the memo on what was actually happening in Dune. Any 40K author at any time can decide it works just fine.
" Resources are still limited"
Sigh. Mining robots give you almost unlimited resources in the first place. Even rudimentary AIs are just fantastic for this. In effect, once you have FTL and mining automation, there is no realistic limit on resources.
GW has a series of genre excuses so they can sell plastic. I get this, but that doesn't mean it makes sense at all.
"If the horrors are so strong that there's nothing that amount of resources can do to turn the tide"
No, just some simple artillery and energy weapons to vaporize you handful of marines and whatever "line" they are around. The rest of the battle might totally go your way, completely independent of the marines that are now atomized. Waffen SS were certainly better soldiers than American conscripts. But did it matter when they were turned into soup by 155s or P-47s? Of course not. Morale and training become a lot less important if I just vaporize you.
Martel732 wrote: "40k humans tried it. It went really, really badly. "
Only because GW mindlessly ripped off Dune. Even in Dune, IX actually saved the day in the long run. GW kinda missed the memo on what was actually happening in Dune. Any 40K author at any time can decide it works just fine.
" Resources are still limited"
Sigh. Mining robots give you almost unlimited resources in the first place. Even rudimentary AIs are just fantastic for this. In effect, once you have FTL and mining automation, there is no realistic limit on resources.
Go play Factorio. You can get automated mining easily enough. You then have absurd amounts of the resource you're mining. But it then takes a lot of work to leverage those resources.
GW has a series of genre excuses so they can sell plastic. I get this, but that doesn't mean it makes sense at all.
"If the horrors are so strong that there's nothing that amount of resources can do to turn the tide"
No, just some simple artillery and energy weapons to vaporize you handful of marines and whatever "line" they are around.
You mean, if the eldrich forces had sufficient energy/artillery to basically nuke the battlefield, anything on it is doomed? How does sending in 10 Marines vs sending in equal costs of IG infantry change that equation? I agree that sending in Marines into a fight that's going to be nuked won't make a difference. But then, neither will anything else.
The rest of the battle might totally go your way, completely independent of the marines that are now atomized. Waffen SS were certainly better soldiers than American conscripts. But did it matter when they were turned into soup by 155s or P-47s? Of course not. Morale and training become a lot less important if I just vaporize you.
If they can just vaporize you, it doesn't matter whether it's 10 Marines, a thousand Guardsmen, or nothing at all. If they can't vaporize you, and it's a question about whether you'll be overrun, morale suddenly matters a lot more.
I think morale matters relatively little in modern warfare. US forces broke constantly in WWII, but came back the next day. It's about killing the enemy and strategic destruction, not if you run on a particular day.
Also, often times you don't know you're in deep gak until you are. That's why the US developed time on target for artillery. Way more effective at killing those Waffen SS guys.
We're not going to agree on this. I find the problems GW present for Eldar to be silly. Just as I find chapters of 1000 marines to be silly. Just as I find the abandonment of science by the Imperium as silly. I don't accept GW's reasons or logic and never will. I'd tell them to go read Dune again, very carefully.
Guardians don't face a bottleneck of equipment production (though it should be noted that within its effective range their light toy-looking carbine is, round-for-round, superior to the weapons carried by power armoured Space Marines...).
They face a bottleneck of personnel, because Eldar don't do things by halves. It's what caused the fall – you don't WANT Guardians being given powerful complex weapons that require lots of training, because then you're asking them to effectively commit to the Path of the Warrior, or just go bonkers with war-lust.
RevlidRas wrote: Guardians don't face a bottleneck of equipment production (though it should be noted that within its effective range their light toy-looking carbine is, round-for-round, superior to the weapons carried by power armoured Space Marines...).
They face a bottleneck of personnel, because Eldar don't do things by halves. It's what caused the fall – you don't WANT Guardians being given powerful complex weapons that require lots of training, because then you're asking them to effectively commit to the Path of the Warrior, or just go bonkers with war-lust.
They give Guardians Wave Serpents, War Walkers, and Vampyr Raiders. Wouldn't those qualify as 'powerful complex weapons that require lots of training"?
And isn't this like asking why they don't just give every Guardsman a Baneblade?
I agree the shuriken weapon is not very eldar like. It plays like an auto shotgun. Shotguns are a garbage weapon in warfare. They are basically breaching weapons only. I would imagine an ancient advanced alien species would have a much better standard weapon that you didn't have to risk getting close to use....like...a rifle or something.
The standard CWE weapon is not the Catapault. It's the Ork Boy or IG Guardsman.
Fighting a standoff at range with a rifle means they don't need to risk getting close, but they instead have to risk a standoff. A "breaching" weapon means they don't have to risk a standoff. It's a type of weapon designed to not risk not ending your opponent immediately.
Why do you feel it makes more sense for Guardians to intend to risk their lives in a standoff passively? If you don't intend to engage beyond effective range of a shotgun, and things not going as intended means you die regardless, what value is there in a rifle?
Bharring wrote: The standard CWE weapon is not the Catapault. It's the Ork Boy or IG Guardsman.
Fighting a standoff at range with a rifle means they don't need to risk getting close, but they instead have to risk a standoff. A "breaching" weapon means they don't have to risk a standoff. It's a type of weapon designed to not risk not ending your opponent immediately.
Why do you feel it makes more sense for Guardians to intend to risk their lives in a standoff passively? If you don't intend to engage beyond effective range of a shotgun, and things not going as intended means you die regardless, what value is there in a rifle?
I love that a summary of this post can be: "Eldar are so advanced they've moved beyond traditional warfare and use their enemies as weapons against each other". Which is a fantastic counter to the "Eldar should have better weapons like rifles" comment above. Truly great stuff.
But stepping outside the fluff for just a moment (well, not entirely), and given the following: A) Battle Focus applies to Rapid Fire weapons the same as Assault weapons and B) Eldar originally as lasgun equivalents
I don't see anything wrong with Shuricats becoming RF weapons (like most other basic Infantry weapons). You could still Advance and Fire them a la Battle Focus, and getting more shots up close makes perfect sense for them. Thusly, I'd like to see them with the following profiles: Catapults - 18" Str3 RF2 AP-1 Avengers - 18" Str4 RF2 AP-1 - Both of these getting 4 shots at half range would be pretty sick, even though that range would be 9" and the Str being quite low for Guardians. But it would FEEL more like a barrage or razor discs
Cannons could be the following- 24' Str5 RF3 AP-1. So again lots of shots, but almost never wounding on 2+. I'd keep the range of these 24" to avoid stepping on the toes of Scatter lasers
It's not about being "beyond" traditional warfare. It's about having the ability to manipulate others and not having the ability to face your foes on the field.
I like my Shuriken Catapaults as Shotguns/sidearms. I didn't at first, but it's grown on me. If you want Lasgun-equivelents, why not just allow them their Lasgun-equivelents? LasBlasters are still a thing, although only a couple units can take them.
Bharring wrote: The standard CWE weapon is not the Catapault. It's the Ork Boy or IG Guardsman.
Fighting a standoff at range with a rifle means they don't need to risk getting close, but they instead have to risk a standoff. A "breaching" weapon means they don't have to risk a standoff. It's a type of weapon designed to not risk not ending your opponent immediately.
Why do you feel it makes more sense for Guardians to intend to risk their lives in a standoff passively? If you don't intend to engage beyond effective range of a shotgun, and things not going as intended means you die regardless, what value is there in a rifle?
I love that a summary of this post can be: "Eldar are so advanced they've moved beyond traditional warfare and use their enemies as weapons against each other". Which is a fantastic counter to the "Eldar should have better weapons like rifles" comment above.
Truly great stuff.
But stepping outside the fluff for just a moment (well, not entirely), and given the following:
A) Battle Focus applies to Rapid Fire weapons the same as Assault weapons and
B) Eldar originally as lasgun equivalents
I don't see anything wrong with Shuricats becoming RF weapons (like most other basic Infantry weapons). You could still Advance and Fire them a la Battle Focus, and getting more shots up close makes perfect sense for them.
Thusly, I'd like to see them with the following profiles:
Catapults - 18" Str3 RF2 AP-1
Avengers - 18" Str4 RF2 AP-1
- Both of these getting 4 shots at half range would be pretty sick, even though that range would be 9" and the Str being quite low for Guardians. But it would FEEL more like a barrage or razor discs
Cannons could be the following- 24' Str5 RF3 AP-1. So again lots of shots, but almost never wounding on 2+. I'd keep the range of these 24" to avoid stepping on the toes of Scatter lasers
-
So advanced, but can't supply their limited citizenry with anything better than 5+ armor. Oh, and here's a gun that puts you within charge range of everything in the known universe. Makes. No. Sense.
Bharring wrote: The standard CWE weapon is not the Catapault. It's the Ork Boy or IG Guardsman.
Fighting a standoff at range with a rifle means they don't need to risk getting close, but they instead have to risk a standoff. A "breaching" weapon means they don't have to risk a standoff. It's a type of weapon designed to not risk not ending your opponent immediately.
Why do you feel it makes more sense for Guardians to intend to risk their lives in a standoff passively? If you don't intend to engage beyond effective range of a shotgun, and things not going as intended means you die regardless, what value is there in a rifle?
Realistically advantages in range and firepower mean you decimate your opponent. One only need to look at the gulf war to figure that.
We had roughly equal numbers of tanks in that engagement. They had similar guns but were able to engage outside of their effective range not to mention serious advantages in targeting. We lost like 3 tanks in combat and 2 were to friendly fire. I get where you are going with your idea - but a farseer and some rangers could pull off that kind of eldar trickery. The guardian is a last resort to protect the craftworld. They are basically militia BUT they are 1000 year old military veterans that are all peak physical condition with lighting fast reactions. Realistically they should all have ranger long rifles.
I always thought that for eldar forces the aspect warriors should make up the troops and guardians should be elites as they are much more limited use in an eldar army.
Martel732 wrote: So advanced, but can't supply their limited citizenry with anything better than 5+ armor. Oh, and here's a gun that puts you within charge range of everything in the known universe. Makes. No. Sense.
It's Aeldari arrogance at it's finest. They don't give them better armour or longer range because they aren't supposed to even need it. The Seers are supposed to manipulate events so that protracted engagement never occur. It obviously still does happen, but from an Aeldari perspective, it isn't supposed to.
The Aeldari mind is an enigma wrapped in a riddle marinated in sensations that a human mind could never comprehend
Xenomancers wrote: I always thought that for eldar forces the aspect warriors should make up the troops and guardians should be elites as they are much more limited use in an eldar army.
Well, Avengers are Troops, but I think the reason the others are not is for the following 2 reasons: A) They just aren't enough CWE. That's why the common citizenry go to war at all and why they even wake the spirits of their dead to fight too and B) Aspect Warriors are not something a CW "recruits" or solicits for. It is only when an Aeldari feels the "touch of Khaine" that they are directed to join a Shine. It's like a rehab center to teach them how to deal with and compartmentalize that part of their psyche.
Martel732 wrote: That's so stupid, I can't even. After they get in ONE battle that wasn't supposed to happen, the jig is clearly up.
Agreed. But the point of Eldar is that "it's too late" for them. They are going extinct and are not an....adaptable species like Humans or T'au. They are basically set in their ways. Remember that in the lore of 40K, the Aeldari race did not evolve like Humans or T'au. They were made ready to go to war by the Old Ones and aside from some cultural schisms as a result of the Fall, haven't really changed in 65+ million years
But... they don't have to be? This is all arbitrary GW nonsense. Eldar in LoTR had to go west because the WORLD was changing. GW just cut and paste into space and then provided handwaving explanations.
Also, aren't there probably like trillions of Eldar? That seems a far cry from "too late for them".
Bharring wrote: The standard CWE weapon is not the Catapault. It's the Ork Boy or IG Guardsman.
Fighting a standoff at range with a rifle means they don't need to risk getting close, but they instead have to risk a standoff. A "breaching" weapon means they don't have to risk a standoff. It's a type of weapon designed to not risk not ending your opponent immediately.
Why do you feel it makes more sense for Guardians to intend to risk their lives in a standoff passively? If you don't intend to engage beyond effective range of a shotgun, and things not going as intended means you die regardless, what value is there in a rifle?
Realistically advantages in range and firepower mean you decimate your opponent. One only need to look at the gulf war to figure that.
What reach and firepower advantages did the aircraft have over the battleship in WW2?
What reach and firepower advantages did the Sherman have over the Panzer?
What reach and firepower advantages did guys with swords have over a trebuchet?
What reach and firepower advantages did a Greek hoplite have over a Persian archer?
In the modern military, they don't give an entire team machine guns. They give one guy a machine gun, and the other guys rifles. Because they have different jobs. They do different things, and have different roles. The machine gun has the reach and firepower over the rifle, 4 riflemen and a machine gun toter outperform 5 machine gun toters.
If you have a unit that will only fight at close range, why would you arm it with a weapon that trades close-range firepower for longer range?
We had roughly equal numbers of tanks in that engagement. They had similar guns but were able to engage outside of their effective range not to mention serious advantages in targeting. We lost like 3 tanks in combat and 2 were to friendly fire. I get where you are going with your idea - but a farseer and some rangers could pull off that kind of eldar trickery. The guardian is a last resort to protect the craftworld.
You do realize that the primary weapons of Guardian squads - Brightlance, EML, Weavers, VibroCannons, etc - outrange other factions' infantry weapons, right? Much like how you have riflemen supporting a single Machine Gun Guy in the modern military, you have Guardians supporting their Heavy.
They are basically militia BUT they are 1000 year old military veterans that are all peak physical condition with lighting fast reactions. Realistically they should all have ranger long rifles.
I always thought that for eldar forces the aspect warriors should make up the troops and guardians should be elites as they are much more limited use in an eldar army.
There are Dire Avengers to play that way. But again, they're exemplars of perfection, not excess. They're kitted to execute devestating killboxes and ambushes, not prolonged standoff firefights.
I do agree they should mass produce long range rifles with heavy firepower. And mount them on autonomous platforms that don't risk Eldar lives in battle. They call them T'au.
"What reach and firepower advantages did the aircraft have over the battleship in WW2?
What reach and firepower advantages did the Sherman have over the Panzer?
What reach and firepower advantages did guys with swords have over a trebuchet?
What reach and firepower advantages did a Greek hoplite have over a Persian archer?
In the modern military, they don't give an entire team machine guns. They give one guy a machine gun, and the other guys rifles. Because they have different jobs. They do different things, and have different roles. The machine gun has the reach and firepower over the rifle, 4 riflemen and a machine gun toter outperform 5 machine gun toters.
If you have a unit that will only fight at close range, why would you arm it with a weapon that trades close-range firepower for longer range? "
If you consider the plane in WW2 as ordinance it effectively meant that CV's had 10x+ the range of a BB and they were more accurate than a BB as well. CV's sunk ships at will with impunity.
Shermans got wrecked by Tigers. Germans at that point in the war were so poorly supplied and didnt even have fuel for their tanks most the time. Not even to mention the fact they had no airforce. Airforce destroyed more tigers than Shermans did. Good point though superior firepower didnt win out there - production is a factor I was speaking in terms of a fair engagement. Never take an unfair engagement.
Trebuchet basically made fortifications worthless so...Im not sure what you mean by this.
Hopilites had superior armor to their firepower so I would say it wasn't an advantage in firepower. They had range but they couldn't hurt them.
In modern military Squads typically have 2 MG's - they all fire the same ammo so in the US military so they have generally equal ranges though MG's do slightly outrange a rifle. We don't have 2 mgs and bunch of guys with shotguns in a unit. That makes no sense.
What does 9 guys doing nothing while 1 guy shoots a bright lance do? If you are up against a force that is equal and their units are firing a bright lance plus 9 sniper rifles at you while your guns are out of range. You are gonna lose that fight every time.
Agree on your last point. Eldar at this point should have a full army of advanced drones and hemlocks with farseers piloting them to fight 99% of their battles.
"What reach and firepower advantages did the aircraft have over the battleship in WW2?
What reach and firepower advantages did the Sherman have over the Panzer?
What reach and firepower advantages did guys with swords have over a trebuchet?
What reach and firepower advantages did a Greek hoplite have over a Persian archer?
In the modern military, they don't give an entire team machine guns. They give one guy a machine gun, and the other guys rifles. Because they have different jobs. They do different things, and have different roles. The machine gun has the reach and firepower over the rifle, 4 riflemen and a machine gun toter outperform 5 machine gun toters.
If you have a unit that will only fight at close range, why would you arm it with a weapon that trades close-range firepower for longer range? "
If you consider the plane in WW2 as ordinance it effectively meant that CV's had 10x+ the range of a BB and they were more accurate than a BB as well. CV's sunk ships at will with impunity.
That's like saying a Guardian is an ordinance of a Craftworld. It gets a little silly.
Shermans got wrecked by Tigers.
A tiger beat *a* Sherman. 3 Shermans beat a Tiger. Shermans were engineered to be mass produced. We produced heavier tanks, too, but it was the Sherman that did the bulk of the lifting.
The Sherman was lighter armored, with less firepower. But it was the better engineered tool.
Germans at that point in the war were so poorly supplied and didnt even have fuel for their tanks most the time. Not even to mention the fact they had no airforce. Airforce destroyed more tigers than Shermans did.
Again, Shermans weren't an anti-tank weapon.
Good point though superior firepower didnt win out there - production is a factor I was speaking in terms of a fair engagement. Never take an unfair engagement.
Which is why the super-advanced race shouldn't engage in a standoff firefight. They have some advantages to fighting that way, sure. But a lot more disadvanges. When you can fold reality, see the future, and have thousands of years of experience, you don't meet the opponent toe-to-toe. You certainly don't meet them on *their* terms. And the rifle is really only good for doing so.
Trebuchet basically made fortifications worthless so...Im not sure what you mean by this.
Even way back then, you could build something with a range and firepower advantage. But if that's all you care about, you'll lose to a more adaptable force. If one side spends resources to build a trebuchet, and the other side builds resources to storm a trebuchet, the side with the range and firepower lost. Range and firepower are two important aspects, but not the only important aspects.
Hopilites had superior armor to their firepower so I would say it wasn't an advantage in firepower. They had range but they couldn't hurt them.
They had superior armor, but not firepower. Archers had range and firepower, but again other facets (armor and terrain) overcame it.
In modern military Squads typically have 2 MG's - they all fire the same ammo so in the US military so they have generally equal ranges though MG's do slightly outrange a rifle. We don't have 2 mgs and bunch of guys with shotguns in a unit. That makes no sense.
You do realize that Guardians can take 2 SLs, Shuriken Cannons, StarCannons, etc? That's like having 2 MGs, only better.
What does 9 guys doing nothing while 1 guy shoots a bright lance do? If you are up against a force that is equal and their units are firing a bright lance plus 9 sniper rifles at you while your guns are out of range. You are gonna lose that fight every time.
Conversely, if you pop out of the webway or around a corner or from hiding with 10 sniper rifles point blank, you're not killing many enemies before you get killed. If you do the same with 10 Shuriken Catapaults, you're killing a lot before they even realize what's happening.
As for Sniper Rifles, there's a reason why marksmen are a lot more common in fighting forces than snipers.
Agree on your last point. Eldar at this point should have a full army of advanced drones and hemlocks with farseers piloting them to fight 99% of their battles.
Why even risk the Farseers? Much less then Honored Dead? Why not just get an entire force of automated units? Getting a T'au battleforce involved risks 0 Eldar lives.
Guardians are for when you can't. When you don't have resources to fight that way. When you're already boned, it's just a question of how badly.
When the Eldar are on the battlefield, they've already lost. They're just fighting to keep from losing *more*.
Don't forget that the black guardians are the standing army of ulthwe, not all Eldar use guardians as support.
Any argument you use to justify having short range catapults also works for longer ranged ones. It's not like those features go away.
They just get extra benefits like being able to shoot the enemy multiple times before they get close enough to threaten them.
Because those guardians are going to be killed by fire from greater than 12", or they're going to have to hope the enemy is a melee unit that needs to get closer.
An assault 24" gun would make guardians continually move, making it impossible for the enemy to close without specialist speed. It would keep them away from the enemy deliberately, rather than put them in harm's way passively.
As for resources, wraithbone is solidified warp energy. They literally sing stuff into existence. Even now at the nadir of their society, they are post scarcity. And they are inventive, everything the dark Eldar use is post fall invention.
The main reason we are arguing this at all is that the Eldar more than any other army is still suffering post 2nd ed legacy disfunction.
In 2nd, the guardian was a faster Guardsman (with better armour - mesh was 5+ while flak was 6+ with 5+ against blast) with the potential to carry a better weapon. They always stood far away.
When they switched to 3rd, they retained the fragile profile, but gimped the gun.
So you've got a half legacy, and the unit has made no sense since. They've piled on special rules to try and cling to a profile that makes no sense, and still haven't managed to fix them. Just for comparison, in the 6 editions since 2nd ed, guardians have always been a problem argued over on how to fix them. In 2nd ed, they were not divisive....
Because if you're going to have them as a unit and equip them to fight, then you're either going to have to increase their survival with their danger prone gun, or retain their fragility and reinstate a longer range.
Making them cheap is a terrible idea - the solution to them isn't too give you more of them
War-lust? Can't someone just be a guy or gal who fights because they have to?
With eldar? That's actually genuinely ambiguous. Path of the Outcast had a guy get into his first boots on the ground fight and almost instantly start getting so obsessed with killing orks via sniper rifle that another range had to snap him back into a more reasonable state of mind; and the text calls out that rangers use sniper rifles specifically because you're less likely to get caught up in blood lust or scarred by the horrors of war from a distance. And then Asurmen had a character kill a rando human for the first time and realize she had to join the path of the warrior because she'd otherwise be unable to deal with the blood lust the act had awoken within her.
I don't necessarily buy that all eldar will instantly go insane with murder jollies as soon as a fight breaks out, but it does seem to be a canonical concern for many of them. As has been pointed out, the eldar were built for war.
Any argument you use to justify having short range catapults also works for longer ranged ones. It's not like those features go away.
Side-comment that I realize isn't relevant to your point, but I always interpreted the longer range on avenger shuriken catapults as being a result of their aspect training. Shuriken weapons seem to be kind of a spray and pray weapon, almost akin to a flamer. I like to think that the extra inches on an avenger catapult are the result of the guy wielding it spending possibly decades focusing on improving the grouping of a more lethal version of one of those foam disc shooters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We're spending a lot of time trying to justify the range on space elf ninja star guns and picking apart the manufacturing logistics of a species whose primary natural resources seem to be star light and emotional singing.
I think most of us agree that it's not unreasonable for guardians to have something akin to a lasblaster. Heck, corsairs can use lasblasters, so it's not as though they're some kind of exotic, difficult to use weapon.
My wishlist for guardians would be:
* Maybe dropping minimum squad size to 5.
* Making heavy weapons 1 per 5
* Making special weapons 2 per 5 if they don't take a heavy weapon. I feel like letting storm guardians be cheaper, worse fire dragons with fewer meltas or a handful of flamers isn't OP.
* In the same way that guardians have "worse avenger guns," let them have access to worse lasblasters. Assault 2 or 3 lasblasters is probably reasonable; it's less offensive oomph thank hawks, even point for point if you cost them properly, but it's enough firepower at long enough range to contribute to a fight; especially if doom is involved.
* Maybe lower their WS/BS to 4+, but have ways to situationally improve this (see below).
* Let one guardian in 5 take an "Eye of Kurnous" (the cyclops visor some models have) that lets him fire a heavy weapon platform at BS 3+.
I also think it's worth bringing up the fact that guardians used to be able to take warlocks as "sergeants" and that said warlocks once had powers that were just always active. So it used to be that you could constantly give your guardians the benefit of cover or boost their performance in close combat, etc. I don't hate the idea of bringing back a "sergeant warlock" option that can choose from a list of "runes" that provide always-on buffs for the guardian squad he's attached to. These runes could protect guardians or boost their offense (I'm picturing +1 to hit in melee) or mobility or let the warlock himself contribute to the squad's offense (giving him something akin to a heavy flamer ala the old "destructor" power.)
These "safe" psychic powers were fluffy for the eldar and, in my opinion, did a lot to bring out the personality of the craftworlders. Like, sure, we're forced to send our poets and chefs into battle, but we're going to give them a psychic walkie-talkie/jedi to help them out. Plus, this strongly supports the thematics of an Ulthwe themed list.
Also, I've seen a few suggestions regarding making shuriken catapults rapid fire. Just remember that craftworld vehicles also have those (well, twin versions usually) but also generally lack battle focus.
I commented earlier that I haven't played eldar in a very long time, but that guardians used to have lasguns with 24" range. Reading through the suggestions above, it seems that the short range of shuriken catapults is very deliberate.
How would everyone feel about doubling down on the short range aspect of the weapon and making it more like a flamer/template type wepaon. It seems to me that the fluff of the weapon would fit with an auto-hit capapbility as it basically fires a boatlaod of monomolecular discs that should be pretty much impossible to avoid/miss with.
How about this as a shuriken catapult profile:
Range 8", Assault D6, autohit, Strength 4 AP 0 D 1
I'd prefer a fixed number of shots, maybe 3 or 4 but it seems that its always random shots for autohit weapons so I left that in.
Not sure how this would alter the Avenger catapult as there don't seem to be any autohit weapons with more than 8" range AFAIK. Maybe make it more shots or higher strength? And still have the wound roll of a 6 for AP-3.
Back in RT and 2nd edition shuriken catapults were just better bolters, IIRC. It's been a long time. Weren't they just bolters with more AP? Same 24" range. This always made sense to me fluffwise; eldar technology should be better than Imperial technology and be costed appropriately. The reduction to 12" came in 3rd edition, and bolters became rapid fire while catapults became assault 2. I think GW envisioned this working out to be functionally equal but it has never worked out that way.
The basic gun of a faction in 40k just shouldn't be such short range, especially a fast, maneuverable army like the Eldar who should be difficult to assault. If anything, 12" range basic guns make more sense fluffwise for the poor technology of orks or biotechnology of tyranids. It would work better mechanically for assault based armies, as well.
I can’t believe someone typed up pages worth of justification for why the wildly advanced Eldar that can build wormholes to the webway and hover tanks can’t afford to make superior armor or weapons than the backwards and moronic imperium.
I play two battalion Alaitoc / Soaring Spite. I really like my triple shuriken cannon wave serpent w/ 10 guardians inside. Its a cheapo unit, you're not missing out on a ton of fire opportunity while they're stuck in there (because they have short range anyway), and they are great at popping out and blasting weaker "objective holder" squads from other armies.
Then they get slaughtered immediately after because they are guardians. One shot wonder. Not the strategy of a race trying to save every single Eldar life.
I use them in 20-man webway bombs. They are decent but not amazing. Defenders are pretty much like expensive, underperforming bloodletters in my experience.
Twin linked catapults on bikes on the other hand...
warpedpig wrote: I can’t believe someone typed up pages worth of justification for why the wildly advanced Eldar that can build wormholes to the webway and hover tanks can’t afford to make superior armor or weapons than the backwards and moronic imperium.
...but they are better. Shuriken Catapults are the Aeldari equivalent of a Shotgun, except they have Rending and stay at Strength 4 even beyond 6".
Lmao. Oh my god. A shotgun? Do you know of any military on earth that would equip their infantry or even national guard with all shotguns? I don’t know why I even respond to this sometimes
warpedpig wrote: Lmao. Oh my god. A shotgun? Do you know of any military on earth that would equip their infantry or even national guard with all shotguns? I don’t know why I even respond to this sometimes
It’s a garbage rifle is what it is.
Yes, the US army, if it deems it necessary on circumstances?
It is not the go to weapon for regular troops. Ever. It is for special purposes. Because it is a specialized weapon. To issue shotguns to everyone is really stupid. A rifle is 10x more useful overall. It is powerful at any range for all practical purposes. The shotgun is only useful in very limited situations
warpedpig wrote: It is not the go to weapon for regular troops. Ever. It is for special purposes. Because it is a specialized weapon. To issue shotguns to everyone is really stupid. A rifle is 10x more useful overall. It is powerful at any range for all practical purposes. The shotgun is only useful in very limited situations
So the doughboys were now specialized infantry in ww1,?
House fighting, cityfighting etc in enclosed spaces would not lead to a preference of short range high firepower weaponry?
Doughboys with shotguns was in an era before wide adoption of submachine guns and assault rifles.
Now we use assault rifles or smgs for close range. Shotguns are for blowing the hinges off doors.
You’re really trying make this shotgun analogy work and it won’t. Craft worlds are MASSIVE and you may need to take shots that are hundreds of meters. Or five meters. This is why rifles are what we issue troops. They work from 0-500 meters
warpedpig wrote: Doughboys with shotguns was in an era before wide adoption of submachine guns and assault rifles.
Now we use assault rifles or smgs for close range. Shotguns are for blowing the hinges off doors.
You’re really trying make this shotgun analogy work and it won’t. Craft worlds are MASSIVE and you may need to take shots that are hundreds of meters. Or five meters. This is why rifles are what we issue troops. They work from 0-500 meters
The mp 18 and various smg's did not exist in ww1?
And where exactly do you think in a craftworld the fighting happens? In the vast Parks? Or the house?
The maintenance rooms or the gardens?
And where do you think the militia will Idle around?
Especially in an army that wants to preserve it's hide as often as possible.
That tends to happen when you completely miss the point.
Of course rifles are a better all round weapon for prolonged warfare than shot guns.
And if Guardians were meant for prolonged warfare, they'd probably have longer range weapons. That's why Avengers have longer range.
But by the time Guardians have to get involved, things have tits-up for the Craftworld already and it's too late for anything other than specialization.
And even if that isn't enough of a logical reason for you, try to remember that 41st millennium Aeldari don't use the same logic as us 21st century, nor would it be "realistic" if they did.
So the best the technologically advanced Eldar can manage is to give their guardians is an extremely close range weapon. Sure. They can’t even match the range of a lasgun. It’s ridiculous.
“Shotgun” argument. Lmfao. Please. It’s a Shuriken launcher not a shotgun. If it truly was a close range only weapon then it’s a pretty weak one. It should be able to drop larger targets pretty reliably if it has sacrificed range.
Whatever you keep on believing that the Eldar can only manage to produce “shotgun” weapons that are only useful for self defense
A weapon that’s useless if the enemy is beyond 50 feet.
A weapon that guarantees the only time the guardians can even contribute to a battle is when the enemy is about to charge them and blow them away or chop them up.
It’s truly stupid. GW used to have longer range weapons for guardians. Bring them back.
warpedpig wrote: So the best the technologically advanced Eldar can manage is to give their guardians is an extremely close range weapon. Sure. They can’t even match the range of a lasgun. It’s ridiculous.
“Shotgun” argument. Lmfao. Please. It’s a Shuriken launcher not a shotgun. If it truly was a close range only weapon then it’s a pretty weak one. It should be able to drop larger targets pretty reliably if it has sacrificed range.
Whatever you keep on believing that the Eldar can only manage to produce “shotgun” weapons that are only useful for self defense
A weapon that’s useless if the enemy is beyond 50 feet.
A weapon that guarantees the only time the guardians can even contribute to a battle is when the enemy is about to charge them and blow them away or chop them up.
It’s truly stupid. GW used to have longer range weapons for guardians. Bring them back.
As is been pointed before somehwre between 2nd and 3rd editions GW took some odd choices for eldar guardians and make this mess.
Back in 2nd edition guardians had WS and BS equal to guardsmen and came with lasrifles, with the choice to *PAY* extra for the shuriken catapult wich was a beefed up Bolter (think it was even sligthy better than Stormbolters having and extra minus armor saves)
when 3rd hit GW removed the lasrifle option and gave guardians the shuriken catapult as default and only weapon (think this was part of a more thematic army sharing less weapons with the imperium, there was also a WD article saying in jest lower mon-keigh can't see the difference between old models of shuriken catapults and their lasrifles)
Somewhere later between 3rd and 5th i think they boosted guardians WS and BS and the current guardian rules we know.
My personal opinion is that shuriken catapults should become rapid fire 24" and -1 ap instead rend and their price be reduced to 6 points as storm guardians are valued now. Right now the eldar guardians prices (not even comenting similarities with other armies troops like guardsmen or tau) means we are paying 2 points just for 1x extra shuriken shoot.
My personal opinion is that shuriken catapults should become rapid fire 24" and -1 ap instead rend and their price be reduced to 6 points as storm guardians are valued now. Right now the eldar guardians prices (not even comenting similarities with other armies troops like guardsmen or tau) means we are paying 2 points just for 1x extra shuriken shoot.
I'd be reluctant to just drop the price of a guardian defender though. As others have pointed out, guardians do currently have a place in competitive lists. Deepstriking blobs hit hard enough for their points and are durable enough with support that you see them in competitive settings. I think the math for AP-1 comes out very close to the current "bladestorm on 6+" rule shuriken weapons have, so your proposed change wouldn't change their maximum offense that much. So slashing the price on an already competitive unit seems like it would just be making a good thing cheaper.
Also, making shuriken catapults into rapid fire weapons would prevent you from shooting them on vehicles after advancing, so you produce some anti synergy for vectored engines, vypers, etc.
If we simply give guardians access to lasblasters (similar to the forgeworld corsair units), then we give them a way of performing a ranged function in both a fluff and mechanical sense. I don't think anyone would strongly oppose guardians suddenly having access to lasblasters in their next kit/codex. It doesn't seem like it would violate their established fluff. We'd all just go, "Yeah, they probably give guardians lasblasters when they expect to fight out in the open and shuriken catapults when they expect to fight in hallways."
The only thing with lasblasters is that the price tag might be too high. Corsairs with lasblasters get expensive fast. So maybe you give guardians a toned down version of the lasblaster the same way they have a toned down version of the avenger shuripult. Make it assault 3 or rapid fire 2 instead of assault 4.
Rapid fire not synergizing with Vehicles is a good point, although we could keep Shuricannons Assault for that very reason.
RF2 catapults at str3 Ap-1 at 18" would give them a bit more range, but still require getting closer to max out the gun's value. I'd hesitate to make them 24" because with the profile I've suggested, they'd be flat out better than currently, not to mention how it would affect Bikes.
Shuricannons could become 24" Str5 Ap-1 Assault 4
So the best the technologically advanced Eldar can manage is to give their guardians is an extremely close range weapon. Sure. They can’t even match the range of a lasgun. It’s ridiculous.
It's got substantially heavier hitting power than the Lasgun. Same effective range, half the maximum range, but far more damage - well over double the damage against some of the harder targets. Range is an important factor, but only one factor; the Shuriken Catapault outperforms in nearly all other factors.
“Shotgun” argument. Lmfao. Please. It’s a Shuriken launcher not a shotgun. If it truly was a close range only weapon then it’s a pretty weak one. It should be able to drop larger targets pretty reliably if it has sacrificed range.
It's not being compared to the mechanics of how a shotgun works. Only to the threat profile it produces; much lower maximum range, much higher impact at closer range. Perhaps "submachinegun" and/or "pistol" would be a better analogy.
Whatever you keep on believing that the Eldar can only manage to produce “shotgun” weapons that are only useful for self defense
Do you really think modern militaries don't use weapons optimized for shorter ranges, to complement weapons optimized for longer weapons?
A weapon that’s useless if the enemy is beyond 50 feet.
You're assuming a Rifle is useless beyond 100 feet. The distances in the game are an abstraction.
A weapon that guarantees the only time the guardians can even contribute to a battle is when the enemy is about to charge them and blow them away or chop them up.
Or when Guardians are manning a heavy weapon.
Or when Guardians are entrenched.
Or when Guardians are toting special weapons.
Or when Guardians ambush the enemy.
Or when Guardians are clearing a point.
Or when the enemy is trying to clear Guardians out of somewhere.
In other words, the weapon is useful any time Guardians are playing a specific part in a battle, instead of just manning the trench as line infantry.
It’s truly stupid. GW used to have longer range weapons for guardians. Bring them back.
I'd love for LasBlasters (or lighter versions) to be options again. But please don't take my Shuriken Catapaults. So I can take the right tool for the job. If I wanted generic line infantry, I wouldn't play a force predicated on not fighting pitched battles.
My personal opinion is that shuriken catapults should become rapid fire 24" and -1 ap instead rend and their price be reduced to 6 points as storm guardians are valued now. Right now the eldar guardians prices (not even comenting similarities with other armies troops like guardsmen or tau) means we are paying 2 points just for 1x extra shuriken shoot.
Even trading away pseudorending, that just becomes too strong.
IG are 24" RF AP0, with lower M, WS, and BS, for 4ppm - and many people think they should be 5ppm. 24" RFAP-1 would be a huge upgrade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think my ideal would be:
LasRifle: 24" A2 S3AP0
If CWE are going to have a longer-range option, it should be more about "perfection" than the standard rifle. So A2 instead of RF1 means they're intended for engaging enemies at 12-24" instead of 0-12". So it's the "perfect" tool for engaging beyond effective range of enemy infantry, but not long enough range to be fully immune (you can use Rangers for that...). And it's no better if they close in, as the weapon should be ideal for it's specific use case.
Bharring wrote: If I wanted generic line infantry, I wouldn't play a force predicated on not fighting pitched battles.
Agreed and as a side note, I started Eldar in 4E because I wanted an army that could field ZERO line Infantry because Jetbikes were Troops. Since that isn't feasible in 8E, I now field some Rangers to fill that role. Which are Troops with 36"...RIFLES. True they may fill a more specialized role than other line Infantry, but that's kinda the point with Eldar. There are almost NO generalist units.
And that is probably the "breakdown" of understanding here. Those claiming GW is "stupid" for not giving Guardians a better sidearm are totally missing the point. Yes, Eldar are more advanced, but they also have a FAR different ideology they us humans here in the 21st century. We could propose changes to Catapults until we are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, Catapults are not supposed to allow Guardians to be a generalist Troop. Dire Avengers are the closest unit Eldar have to fill that role. Almost all other units fill a very specific role.
And while the mindset of our species is to be adaptable, the mindset of 41st millennium CWE is to be specialized to the exclusion of all other roles. It's the whole reason they developed the Path system for their society. Some may think that's dumb, but that's because they are an unevolved Mon'Keigh (just making a joke, not trying to be malicious). On the table-top, this over specialization has put Eldar in the top teir for several editions, so maybe their basic Troops having a "garbage" weapon is on purpose to knock them down a peg
warpedpig wrote: Except when they were originally 24” and not 12”. So you gonna rationalize why 24” was right for a while and not right now?
Easily. Back then, Eldar didn't have a personality as they were just "Space Elves" and had almost copy-pastes of Imperial weapons. Seriously, this was the era in which the Wraithlord was called the Eldar "Dreadnought" and Guardians had lasguns.
IMO, giving them standard weapons that makes no sense FROM OUR MODERN HUMAN PERSPECTIVE actually goes a long way to show just how "alien" they actually are.
It makes sense BECAUSE it makes no sense
Aash wrote: I haven't played as Eldar in a very long time, (2nd/3rd edition) but back then, Guardians came armed with lasguns with 24" range and Dire Avengers were armed with the superior Shuriken Catapult (which IIRC was also 24" range, and had almost the same stats as a storm bolter)
I'm surprised that Guardians don't have an option for a normal troop weapon at longer range. I say bring back the option for a lasgun equivalent. (call it something else if you prefer).
It was actually better than a storm bolter. It had -2 armour (compared to the storm bolter -1), and all other stats were the same.
So it makes sense because it makes no sense. This is your argument.
How do you swallow that BS?
In every single way. Eldar should have vastly superior weapons and armor and technology. Period. Dot.
The idea that their basic infantry rifle doesn’t surpass the imperial weapons is absolutely senseless from a fluff point of view. But for playing the table top that’s the only reason it isn’t
warpedpig wrote: Except when they were originally 24” and not 12”. So you gonna rationalize why 24” was right for a while and not right now?
Easily. Back then, Eldar didn't have a personality as they were just "Space Elves" and had almost copy-pastes of Imperial weapons. Seriously, this was the era in which the Wraithlord was called the Eldar "Dreadnought" and Guardians had lasguns.
IMO, giving them standard weapons that makes no sense FROM OUR MODERN HUMAN PERSPECTIVE actually goes a long way to show just how "alien" they actually are.
It makes sense BECAUSE it makes no sense
-
But the Shuriken Catapult (at 24" range) was already different as a weapon to the Bolter. In fact, the Imperials had all the Shuriken Catapults taken away, and the different, 24" range Shuriken Catapult was made a main 'Eldar' weapon for their new Dire Avenger aspect warriors to make the Craftworlds more unique than the 10-man 1 heavy weapon + sergeant squads.
Also, there was actually likely contact between the Eldar and Humanity that caused a lot of cross pollination in terms of technology. Most of the Imperial modern tech from Laser and Plasma is likely Eldar derived.
And you base this “cross pollination” on what? Some theory that humans who have plasma guns blow up in their hands somehow are teaching the Eldar about laser and plasma technology. While there Eldar use the webways. Warp jump generators. D-weapons. Etc. all vastly superior technologies
warpedpig wrote: And you base this “cross pollination” on what? Some theory that humans who have plasma guns blow up in their hands somehow are teaching the Eldar about laser and plasma technology. While there Eldar use the webways. Warp jump generators. D-weapons. Etc. all vastly superior technologies
Well, mostly humans copying Eldar tech.
The main thing is a load of their weaponry has the same principle base. The eldar and humans would for sure have had contact during a lot of their interstellar eras, the former being the biggest power in the galaxy at the time and the latter a rapid expanding one.
warpedpig wrote: So it makes sense because it makes no sense. This is your argument.
How do you swallow that BS?
I get why you are so adamant about the "superior tech" argument. I truly get that. Eldar once dominated the galaxy. But in lore, the Aeldari race have always been portrayed as incomprehensible, more so than straight up superior (yes they are superior, but the point is that they are very alien, despite looking the most like humans) So the fact that their weapon choice makes no sense TO YOU, AS A HUMAN, fits perfectly well with the Lore. The Eldar mind is a convoluted web of lies and half-truths that no human could ever understand. This is why they will always be mistrusted by Humans, because humans will always fear what they can never understand.
Eldar also adapt FAR slower than the younger races. There are 2 reasons for this: 1) Their civilization peaked, they got to the top of their tech and had no need to further advance. IF innovation and advancement are not enoucourage in your society, innovation and advancement DOESN'T happen. Just look as the Imperium. 2) The life span of an Aeldari being so long actually makes further innovation stagnate. Humans and T'au advance far faster because our lifespans are so much shorter, that the next generation can pick up a problem with "fresh eyes" and a new perspective. For Eldar, they live so long and procreate so slowly, that the "new perspective" doesn't arrive before the problem can be solved in a new way. So the "old ways" continue to prevail, even if they make little sense.
Also look at it this way, Bolters are considered to be the epitome of standard side arms for the Imperium. Shuriken Catapults are better the Bolters in EVERY way except range. And since the ideal way of war for Eldar is to strike hard and fast so that retaliation isn't a factor anymore, why bother changing it?
Not when you can drop them into that range, shoot, then immediately move back 7" into some terrain (2+ armour platforms), then gain a 4++ against shooting in the next turn.
Could it stand some alteration? Sure. I've already suggested the following: 18" RF2 S3 AP-1
But I could easily see it just get a straight bump to 18" as-is, with Avenger Cats being bumped to 24". What I DON'T want to see is it being 24" RF1. Too many races already have that for their standard weapon. It's boring, and would be one more weapons that's flat out better than Bolters
It's certainly better to have variety between races, otherwise they just become a carbon-copy of one another with fresh names slapped on them. Having a 12" range is fine if you can move 7" after shooting - it might as well have been a 19" range without the move.
Galef wrote: Not when you can drop them into that range, shoot, then immediately move back 7" into some terrain
you cannot do this anymore, models can only move after deepstriking if its for a charge / pile in / consolidate, it becomes a lot harder to position the guardians in a safe spot without losing some shots
Galef wrote: Not when you can drop them into that range, shoot, then immediately move back 7" into some terrain
you cannot do this anymore, models can only move after deepstriking if its for a charge / pile in / consolidate, it becomes a lot harder to position the guardians in a safe spot without losing some shots
True, but my point stands that it's an option later on, and for the turn they drop in, they can still do so in cover and then get a 4++. I'd hardly call that a suicide unit, especially if you are able to KILL every thing within 12" of them on that turn (which is easily done with Eldar)
It's only suicidal if you drop them in around things you aren't going to kill that turn.
Once again, the army is built to go all-in and engage a subset of the enemy all at once. Either fluff or tabletop, if they engage and don't wipe out the enemy, they die. It's only suicide if they fail. A rifle would have the same problem, except be less capable at the sort of blitz combat CWE need to use to survive.
Bharring wrote: Once again, the army is built to go all-in and engage a subset of the enemy all at once. Either fluff or tabletop, if they engage and don't wipe out the enemy, they die. It's only suicide if they fail. A rifle would have the same problem, except be less capable at the sort of blitz combat CWE need to use to survive.
can you stop complaining about it? Thats how eldar have been since the inception of the game, a dying race that is too stubborn to change and will fight with everything they got to defend their craftworld. yes, this includes giving cheap weapons to their militia.
Your attitude towards eldar lore would be similar to complaining that space marines shouldn't be able to run super fast/ never tire/ be immortal/ spit acid/ absorb the memories of who they eat/ etc. Warhammer as a setting declared that this was how the eldar were a long time ago, guardians not getting their own personal *better gun than catapult* is part of their fluff, theyre an improvised fighting force.
imao would be a mistake to make shuriken catapults 24". Specially in an army that can advance and shoot without penalty, has a wide army -1 to hit outside of 12", moves at least 7", has the option to shoot and move, has by far the best troop transport in the game and has a platform capable to pack 2 catapults in a platform that move 16" and runs a flat 6" inches for a ridiculous 18 points.
Also will invalidate other options like shuriken canons or dire avengers.
Wyldhunt wrote: Shuriken weapons are mechanically just fine.
From a fluff perspective, shuriken catapults maybe make more sense in the context of guardians defending Zone Mortalis style internal passageways within a craftworld or hopping out of a wave serpent to spray stuff at close range. And then there's Ulthwe whose guardians are usually depicted as being competent enough as ambush combatants for the gun to sort of make sense.
That said, having 9 guys baby sitting the one dude who's actually shooting the heavy weapon platform does feel really strange. You end up investing a lot of points and bodies into these short ranged guns that feel at-odds with the long-ranged heavy weapon. I suspect the squad was designed that way to better mirror a guardsman unit (making guardians feel more comparable to guardsmen than, for instance, space marines with their 1 special per 5 guys setup). But it looks and feels a bit awkward.
I'd really like for the minimum squad size of guardian defenders to drop to 5. 5 guys with a platform seems less silly than having 9 short ranged guns crowding around the lone guy with the video game controller. Plus, it would drop the cost of a guardian squad to be comparable to that of a guardsman squad with a heavy weapon team. The ranged offense of the guardians would be slightly higher, but their number of ablative wounds would be lower. Which seems like a good crunch representation of the fluff; eldar are better than you, but there are fewer of them.
All that said, I'm not necessarily opposed to guardians returning to having access to lasblasters either. Lowering the squad size just seems like an elegant improvement for fluff, crunch, and aesthetic.
This would be much more better instead and will give them a niche.
I think the 12" range Catapult is a casualty of the shift from 2nd to 3rd. Lots of things were shifted at that time, and Catapults were shifted to Assault 2 12" at the same time the Bolter shifted to Rapid Fire 1 at a time when Rapid Firing meant you had to stand still, and you could not Assault after Rapid Firing. The Catapult was a great weapon in comparison, because you could move, fire twice, and then Assault.
Since then, the Bolter has evolved to be able to move and fire twice(but no Assault), and then again to being able to Assault after firing twice on the move, and then again to Marines firing twice at long range while standing still. Meanwhile, the Catapult got a little extra penetration bonus, but comparatively it got left behind. I am all for the Catapult having its range increased to at least 18", and pushing the Avenger Catapults to 24. I'd even go for 24" and 30", respectively, and shift points a bit.
Fun fact: for over half of 6th Ed, Shuriken Catapaults were just S4 A2 AP5 12". So the same as an SM Shotgun. Or a Boltgun, if the user wasn't going to charge. No Bladestorm. No battlefocus. And BS4+ on the Guardians.
Bharring wrote: Fun fact: for over half of 6th Ed, Shuriken Catapaults were just S4 A2 AP5 12". So the same as an SM Shotgun. Or a Boltgun, if the user wasn't going to charge. No Bladestorm. No battlefocus. And BS4+ on the Guardians.
As I've said before, guardians have been argued over from 3rd to 8th ed. There hasn't been a post 2nd Ed edition where they've not caused issues.
No one had a problem with them in 2nd, because they did what they were supposed to do, sit as far back as possible, plink some dudes and stay away from enemy attacks.
Because of the bizarre choices of 3rd and on, they are one of the most confusing units in the game with no clear and sensible reason for then to exist at they do.
All the arguments being made have been made since 3rd ed.
And I will say again, that giving them a rifle instead of a shotgun will only give them more options, it won't take anything away from them.
I don't buy the unique army Shtick. GW has been erroding non marine armies for years and inventing imperial stuff that does the same thing.
The Eldar are running out of uniqueness because of this, not because guardians should have long range rifles.
Bharring wrote: If I wanted generic line infantry, I wouldn't play a force predicated on not fighting pitched battles.
Agreed and as a side note, I started Eldar in 4E because I wanted an army that could field ZERO line Infantry because Jetbikes were Troops.
Since that isn't feasible in 8E, I now field some Rangers to fill that role. Which are Troops with 36"...RIFLES.
True they may fill a more specialized role than other line Infantry, but that's kinda the point with Eldar. There are almost NO generalist units.
And that is probably the "breakdown" of understanding here. Those claiming GW is "stupid" for not giving Guardians a better sidearm are totally missing the point.
Yes, Eldar are more advanced, but they also have a FAR different ideology they us humans here in the 21st century.
We could propose changes to Catapults until we are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, Catapults are not supposed to allow Guardians to be a generalist Troop.
Dire Avengers are the closest unit Eldar have to fill that role. Almost all other units fill a very specific role.
And while the mindset of our species is to be adaptable, the mindset of 41st millennium CWE is to be specialized to the exclusion of all other roles. It's the whole reason they developed the Path system for their society.
Some may think that's dumb, but that's because they are an unevolved Mon'Keigh (just making a joke, not trying to be malicious).
On the table-top, this over specialization has put Eldar in the top teir for several editions, so maybe their basic Troops having a "garbage" weapon is on purpose to knock them down a peg
-
This is all inference and none of it is supported by the background. The entire modern eldar way of war was invented 10,000 years ago - in the 29th millennium there was no such thing as an aspect, the path, farseers etc.
The eldar invented an entire military structure for their new craftworld homes. They created autarchs (which I personally don't like, but they're there now) who are specialists at figuring out how to get the best out of their military.
It wouldn't take an autarch and a farseer who can see the future long to figure out that deploying guardians with the absolute wrong weaponry to fufill their role is not only bad strategy, it's bad survival, and it's just not aesthetic...
You've also got to remember that not all craftworlds use dire avengers as their mainline - Ulthwe's main army is guardians. And suddenly all these arguments fall apart because suddenly they aren't support crew for a heavy weapon, they're frontline troops trying to do frontline things with a shotgun.
We can dissentangle the argument about whether shuriken weapons should go back to their original profiles from whether guardians should be equipped with rifles or shotguns. IMO shuriken weapons SHOULD go back to their original profiles AND guardians should have the OPTION to choose between multiple different weapon options that best suits the roles they undertake.
It is an oversimplification that the eldar are an all or nothing army. ASPECT warriors are all or nothing in their specific niche. Guardians are far more flexible support troops.
Whether it offends peoples' sensibilities to increase the range on a catapult or not, playtest guardians with 14" range guns.
As in 2nd ed, you'll find your aspects closing in for the kill with your guardians behind them in sujpport. The only change is that guardians will die less and do more.
EDIT
IMO they made a fundamental misstep when going from 2nd ed to 3rd ed. They shouldn't have redefined the guardian, they should have redefined the DIRE AVENGER.
A 12" range weapon is not a 'hold out', or defensive weapon, it's an aggressive assault weapon. A 24" ranged weapon does just as much damage at 12", but ALSO increases the threat range and ensures the guardians are less likely to have the enemy get too close.
IMO they should have redefined the AVENGER as a forward assault unit, using cutdown catapults and shuriken melee weapons to get stuck in down and dirty. So Avengers have a 12" ranged gun, but say assault 4 and the rending rule on their melee attacks. And suddenly they are their own distinct niche that balances melee and shooting, makes them distinct from the guardians who stand 24" away firing heavy weapons and keeping the enemy at arm's length.
can you stop complaining about it? Thats how eldar have been since the inception of the game, a dying race that is too stubborn to change and will fight with everything they got to defend their craftworld. yes, this includes giving cheap weapons to their militia.
Your attitude towards eldar lore would be similar to complaining that space marines shouldn't be able to run super fast/ never tire/ be immortal/ spit acid/ absorb the memories of who they eat/ etc. Warhammer as a setting declared that this was how the eldar were a long ti no rume ago, guardians not getting their own personal *better gun than catapult* is part of their fluff, theyre an improvised fighting force.
Marine lore is dumb, too. As far as im concerned, they cant do any of that stuff.
Galef wrote: Although, personally, I'd like see them with the following profile:
12" Str3 Assault 3 AP-1 (remove the AP-3 on 6s)
Avenger Cats can be 18", Str4 Assault 3 AP-1
Shuricannons 24" Str5 Assault 4 AP-1
I'd make this change to make them "feel" more like a barrage of tiny razor discs, rather than make the change to "improve" them
-
Can Necrons replace their -1 AP with -3 on 6s so they become better against vehicles? That trade is just so obvious and fluffy, although it would probably hurt both factions.
IMO they should have redefined the AVENGER as a forward assault unit, using cutdown catapults and shuriken melee weapons to get stuck in down and dirty. So Avengers have a 12" ranged gun, but say assault 4 and the rending rule on their melee attacks. And suddenly they are their own distinct niche that balances melee and shooting, makes them distinct from the guardians who stand 24" away firing heavy weapons and keeping the enemy at arm's length.
Easy solution: Make the normal catapult 24" range Assault 2; Dire Avenger catapult 24" range Rapidfire 2. Dire Avengers can still shoot at range, but less effective overall due to higher pointscost and less volume, but once in short range as an assault troop they rip and tear.
Noone is saying shorter range is a good thing, or that Eldar would use shorter ranged weapons because they want shorter range. The argument is that Eldar may prefer heavier hitting power over longer range. They might prefer 2 S4 PseudoRending shots at 12" over 1 S3 shot at 24". Now, the finer points of where the balance is certainly is debatable. And there are certainly ways in which range beats out power.
But there are also ways in which power beat out range.
Even in the real world, real militaries don't pick range over firepower in all cases. The average infantry unit isn't a team of snipers. Drones fire rockets instead of ships firing cruise missiles. Machine guns get taken in places they could take mortars. Because the range is a tradeoff.
I, too, wish they'd redo Avengers a bit - although a bit differently (lose overwatch-on-5s, gain A2 - less effective crunchwise, but feels more like Asurman's aspect). But whatever happens to Guardians, I'm sure a reasonable, similar change could be made to Avengers.
The objection to the Rifle is that it's primary advantages are it's versatility; CWE are really *bad* at versatility. Between their culture, their war doctrines, and their arrogance, they're much more likely to have very specific tools instead of versatile, generic tools.
That's why the change I'd like to see is a 24" A2 S3 AP0 "rifle". The ideal tool for engaging at standoff range. It's not intended to be used in place of a Catapult up close - so Assault instead of RF. And, there's already models for them (although they're OOP).
Having a Guardian pick between a close-range heavy hitter, and a long-range peashooter, would allow to the squad to further specialize, and allow people to take what they consider a "more sensible" weapon. As for balance, the numbers could be tweaked as needed, and points could even vary if necessary.
^Eww. I get that Guardians had the option to be deployed with Lasguns back in 2nd, but frankly I think the S3 is a bit insulting. The Catapult upgrade wasn't a "functionality tradeoff", it was just a flat upgrade. Imo the proper thing is to just extend the range of the Catapult. It's not going to make Guardians OP or anything, and the Catapult is as much the signature Eldar weapon as the Bolter is the signature weapon for Space Marines. The issue is that the Bolter has improved dramatically from 3rd through 8th, while the Catapult hasn't kept up.
It's not a shotgun, it's a rifle or at least a carbine, and it should be treated as such.
Bharring wrote: But wouldn't 8ppm be a bit too cheap for a 24" A2 S4 gun with pseudorending? Even on a GEQ frame?
Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for adjusting points if that's waht it takes to get a 18 or 24" range Catapult.
I'd point out that an 8 point Gant has a 18" S4 Assault 3 gun, 6+ Sv. BS 4+. Guardians have a 5+ save and a BS of 3+. The Battle Sisters at 9 points(apparently) have a 3+ save and a 3+ BS. Now while I don't think points from one codex translate to another codex necessarily, I'd say that an 8 point Guardian with a 18" Catapult isn't exactly crazy. Plus, I often see Tyranid Armies with Gants, and Sisters armies with Battle Sisters, but I rarely see Guardians in an Eldar army. That too ought to be evidence of something. This is less a strictly balance issue and ore of a "What do you want the army to manifest as?" issue.
Galef wrote: Although, personally, I'd like see them with the following profile:
12" Str3 Assault 3 AP-1 (remove the AP-3 on 6s)
Avenger Cats can be 18", Str4 Assault 3 AP-1
Shuricannons 24" Str5 Assault 4 AP-1
I'd make this change to make them "feel" more like a barrage of tiny razor discs, rather than make the change to "improve" them
-
Can Necrons replace their -1 AP with -3 on 6s so they become better against vehicles? That trade is just so obvious and fluffy, although it would probably hurt both factions.
Galef wrote: Although, personally, I'd like see them with the following profile:
12" Str3 Assault 3 AP-1 (remove the AP-3 on 6s)
Avenger Cats can be 18", Str4 Assault 3 AP-1
Shuricannons 24" Str5 Assault 4 AP-1
I'd make this change to make them "feel" more like a barrage of tiny razor discs, rather than make the change to "improve" them
-
Can Necrons replace their -1 AP with -3 on 6s so they become better against vehicles? That trade is just so obvious and fluffy, although it would probably hurt both factions.
That would be mathematically worse.
Depends what they're shooting at.
MEQs take, from 36 hits, 9 wounds at AP-1. Change that to AP0 (-3 on 6s to-wound) you get 9 still.
Against TEQs, 6 wounds now. Changed, 6 still.
GEQs take 20 wounds now, changed would be 18.
Rhinos take 6 now, 7 with the change.
And Leman Russes go from 3 to 5.
So... If by "mathematically worse" you mean solely against GEQs, sure.
* Shuriken catapults probably shouldn't become mid-ranged weapons. Some people like the idea of bumping them up to 18", but making them 24"+ doesn't seem popular.
* Giving guardians the option to switch to a lasblaster or worse version of a lasblaster (something like an assault 2 lasblaster) would probably be reasonable. Basically, you'd trade raw damage for range.
* There might be something to be said for either lowering the squad size or increasing the number of heavy/special weapons guardians/storm guardians can take per X bodies.
* Shuriken catapults could possibly be changed to flavorful effect but do have their place as-is.
Does that sound about right? Maybe I'm projecting my biases onto my reading of the room.
Personally I would increase range to 18 for no cost, or 24 for 1 point.
They wouldn't require more heavy weapons if Catapults had a 24" range. However I'd be fine if you dropped the Squad minimum to 5. It would mean if you wanted more heavies, you could just take more squads, and I'm fine with that. I like the idea of small, independent pockets of Guardians.
Having an alternate weapon isnt something I'm hot on, but it could be an excuse to upgrade the kit and promote selling for the alternate build.
It's sometimes hard to look at something in isolation.
I'd do more than just give guardian defenders a longer range weapon. I'd rearrange guardian militia units entirely.
Guardians have a presence in every slot except elites -
Autarch (not technically a guardian, but one of the only leaders of the guardian units)
Defenders
Storm
Windriders
Vypers
Support weapon battery
War Walkers
Tanks
Wave serpents
For a milita, they're a pretty complete army, which is good because the black guardians are the main Ulthwe force....
So I would do something like this:
Defenders (5-15)
Choose one of the following weapon options:
Lasblaster (24" Assault4)
Shuriken catapult (18" Assaiult2)
Heavy weapon platforms: you may take one per 5 guardians. They shoot independently of the unit (a bit like a tau drone).
Storm guardians (5-20)
Choose one of the following weapon options:
Shuriken blaster (Assault 12" S3 AP-1 Assault 3)
Shuriken pistol + Aeldari blades/chainblades (+1A, 6 to wound -1AP)
Plasma grenades, Krak grenades
One in every 5 storm guardians may replace their weapons with one of the following:
Fusion gun
Flamer
Star rifle (Assault 2 18" S6 AP-3 D2)
Storm guardians may take melta bombs +x pts each
Dire Avengers:
Special rule: bladestorm - if they don't move at all, their catapults count as Heavy 4
Swooping hawks
Special Rule: Lightstorm - every 6 rolled to hit counts as S6
I am all for adding to the range of weapons the eldar use, rather than keeping them constrained to the same set all the time. They've got millions of years of tech to plunder which means they should have a huge back catalogue of weird weapons to draw on. The DAoT only lasted a few thousand...
I don't think increasing the range of catapults would necessitate a points change. As it stands, guardian defenders and dire avengers are both too expensive. Avengers aren't competitive at all and defenders are primarily useful as a deep striking blob of 20, which requires CP and psychic support. Increasing their range has no impact on that, it only adds to the viability of currently lackluster/overcosted options.
Kind of off topic but next on my wish list would be +1 str for storm guardian aeldari blades. As it is, they are pointless vs chainswords. Or make blades +1 attack and change aeldari chainswords to +1 str for a 1 point upgrade.
I saw a tournament winning list with dire avengers and asurmen. The trouble again is that guardians on their own are just garbage. You have to build an entire strategy for getting them close enough to fire one volley without them getting destroyed on the way in. And then they don’t even last another turn unless you fire and fade and expend more CP and more luck. Just make it 24” and be done
warpedpig wrote: I saw a tournament winning list with dire avengers and asurmen. The trouble again is that guardians on their own are just garbage. You have to build an entire strategy for getting them close enough to fire one volley without them getting destroyed on the way in. And then they don’t even last another turn unless you fire and fade and expend more CP and more luck. Just make it 24” and be done
The thing about buffing the shuriken catapult for guardians is that it makes them tread on avengers' toes really fast. Currently, avengers' advantages over guardians are: a smaller minimum unit cost, a better armor save, slightly better small arms fire. But if the guardian catapult goes from being a short ranged gun to being a mid-ranged gun like the avengers', then avengers look even less cost-effective than they do now. Plus, 24" + 7" + d6" kind of seems like a big threat range for a better-than-a-bolter gun.Kind of digging the idea of an assault 2 lasblaster. Lets guardians plink away at a distance at the cost of reducing their burst damage.
That said, I'm not opposed to overhauling avengers to reduce this overlap.
Dire Avengers:
Special rule: bladestorm - if they don't move at all, their catapults count as Heavy 4
The only thing about this is that it encourages avengers to become static. Currently, avengers actually make pretty good use of bladestorm and the mobility of eldar infantry in general. Forcing them to become static or else give up half their offense feels unfluffy. Maybe something closer to their old bladestorm rule where they could add a shot to their shuriken weapons at the cost of not shooting at all on the following turn? Sort of like a first rank fire second rank fire for shurikens. It lowers their overall number of shots (3 shots on a catapult over the course of 2 turns instead of 4 shots), but it increases your burst damage on the turn that you need it.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the avengers to have the shorter range catapults, if someone has to? They have the better armor and training after all. Let defenders have 18" or 24" range catapults so they can, you know, defend. Then give avengers 12" assault 3 catapults, to fill a niche as short range shock troops. It's kind of odd that when they're handing out the guns and realize that they left half of the rangefinders back in the armory the poorly armored guardians get the short end of the stick. Even in this scenario I think both are over costed. Maybe 7 for defenders and 10 for avengers would be right.
I, too, wish they'd redo Avengers a bit - although a bit differently (lose overwatch-on-5s, gain A2 - less effective crunchwise, but feels more like Asurman's aspect). But whatever happens to Guardians, I'm sure a reasonable, similar change could be made to Avengers.
Upping their attacks would be very fluffy, but I'm not sure it really does them any favors. Even at A2 on normal guys and A3 on a power weapon-equipped exarch, avengers just wouldn't hit hard enough for me to want to throw them into melee. You'd be looking at roughly the same melee output as a bare bones guardsman squad. Plus, you kind of lose the "defensive charge catcher" angle that their 5+ on overwatch represents.
What about letting them fall back and shoot? It plays up their mobility (agile elves darting away, fighting on the run). It makes them a good unit for screening/catching charges because you can just fall back and keep fighting as long as you don't get triangled. Keeping them alive for one fight phase gives you a reason to invest in a shimmer shield. Heck, it maybe even encourages you to take more than a min-sized squad so that you're harder to triangle or wipe out in a single phase.
Yeah. I'm kind of liking the idea of letting them fall back and shoot and then creating a stratagem to do an old school FRSRF blade storm and another stratagem to reduce the enemy's offense ala the old Defend rule. It seems fluffy and useful without being OP. Thoughts?
That's why the change I'd like to see is a 24" A2 S3 AP0 "rifle". The ideal tool for engaging at standoff range. It's not intended to be used in place of a Catapult up close - so Assault instead of RF. And, there's already models for them (although they're OOP).
Having a Guardian pick between a close-range heavy hitter, and a long-range peashooter, would allow to the squad to further specialize, and allow people to take what they consider a "more sensible" weapon. As for balance, the numbers could be tweaked as needed, and points could even vary if necessary.
I'm on board with all of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orbei wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense for the avengers to have the shorter range catapults, if someone has to? They have the better armor and training after all. Let defenders have 18" or 24" range catapults so they can, you know, defend. Then give avengers 12" assault 3 catapults, to fill a niche as short range shock troops. It's kind of odd that when they're handing out the guns and realize that they left half of the rangefinders back in the armory the poorly armored guardians get the short end of the stick. Even in this scenario I think both are over costed. Maybe 7 for defenders and 10 for avengers would be right.
Except that storm guardians (and maybe wind riders) are kind of already the "short ranged shock troopers." And guardians, but that's due to their relatively low cost and large unit size.
warpedpig wrote: I saw a tournament winning list with dire avengers and asurmen. The trouble again is that guardians on their own are just garbage. You have to build an entire strategy for getting them close enough to fire one volley without them getting destroyed on the way in. And then they don’t even last another turn unless you fire and fade and expend more CP and more luck. Just make it 24” and be done
The thing about buffing the shuriken catapult for guardians is that it makes them tread on avengers' toes really fast. Currently, avengers' advantages over guardians are: a smaller minimum unit cost, a better armor save, slightly better small arms fire. But if the guardian catapult goes from being a short ranged gun to being a mid-ranged gun like the avengers', then avengers look even less cost-effective than they do now. Plus, 24" + 7" + d6" kind of seems like a big threat range for a better-than-a-bolter gun.Kind of digging the idea of an assault 2 lasblaster. Lets guardians plink away at a distance at the cost of reducing their burst damage.
That said, I'm not opposed to overhauling avengers to reduce this overlap.
Something to consider is that GW have spent 6 editions of the game trying to special rule their way out of a stubborn design decision.
Battle focus is entirely unnecessary if they just had longer ranged guns. In fact, IMO, it doesn't even do what what it's trying to do - represent the eldar speed in war. All it does is add an extra physical action of moving units to actually put them in range of the enemy.
Eldar speed at war has never been represented properly since 2nd ed.
You see, back then hit modifiers were applied for how fast something moved. Anything moving 10-20" was -1 to hit, anything 20'+ was at -2. All eldar were at least M5, so they were at -1 to hit if they ran 10".
All eldar tanks moved very fast, so were often at -2 to hit.
Being a core rule meant that it affected everyone equally, so imperial vehicles got harder to hit if they moved fast enough, and Tyranids got harder to hit when they ran because they were very fast as well.
The 'eldar use speed instead of thick armour' shtick has not worked since 2nd ed because they literally removed the rules that reflected it, so the eldar just became fragile.
There are 2 things that you could do to represent this - have a modifier to hit for moving fast, and give the eldar a move in the assault phase - a 'fall back' in any direction. The darting in and out to strike aspect of the eldar was only ever represented in BFG where the eldar ships did exactly this - they got two movement phases so they moved in, shot, then moved out again.
Wyldhunt wrote: So... nebulous general consensus seems to be:
* Shuriken catapults probably shouldn't become mid-ranged weapons. Some people like the idea of bumping them up to 18", but making them 24"+ doesn't seem popular.
* Giving guardians the option to switch to a lasblaster or worse version of a lasblaster (something like an assault 2 lasblaster) would probably be reasonable. Basically, you'd trade raw damage for range.
* There might be something to be said for either lowering the squad size or increasing the number of heavy/special weapons guardians/storm guardians can take per X bodies.
* Shuriken catapults could possibly be changed to flavorful effect but do have their place as-is.
Does that sound about right? Maybe I'm projecting my biases onto my reading of the room.
Yeah, that sounds about right. And several of my proposals check several of those boxes. I.E, make Shuricats 18" RF2, but drop to Str3. That extends the range at the cost of punch, unless you get within 9" since 4 shots at Str3 should do equal to more damage then 2 shots at str4. This is also far more flavorful since shurikens shouldn't have the same punch as Bolters, but should have more shots. Then I'd give Guardians the option to take 2 weapon platforms at their minimum squad size (still 10), and a third at max squad size (20).
I would only entertain the option for taking Lasblasters if it came with a new Gaurdian box set to include those weapons. As it stands, however, I'd prefer a new box just to include Storm Guardian options instead.
Eldar should be fast and have very effective armor. And be expensive. Like, you know, a true elder race. One Eldar should be capable of killing multiple marines because that's how advanced tech works.
Scientifically speaking, yes. Their weapons would be borderline magic to even a space marine. I'm not in the business of selling plastic, though. I'm in the business of what makes sense. Think of the berserker body from Alita or something like that. That would be the armor for the rank and file Eldar.
Martel732 wrote: Eldar should be fast and have very effective armor. And be expensive. Like, you know, a true elder race. One Eldar should be capable of killing multiple marines because that's how advanced tech works.
You can do that. Just run Jetbikes with Scatter Lasers, except use the Swooping Hawk or Warp Spider models. There you go!
Wyldhunt wrote: So... nebulous general consensus seems to be:
* Shuriken catapults probably shouldn't become mid-ranged weapons. Some people like the idea of bumping them up to 18", but making them 24"+ doesn't seem popular.
* Giving guardians the option to switch to a lasblaster or worse version of a lasblaster (something like an assault 2 lasblaster) would probably be reasonable. Basically, you'd trade raw damage for range.
* There might be something to be said for either lowering the squad size or increasing the number of heavy/special weapons guardians/storm guardians can take per X bodies.
* Shuriken catapults could possibly be changed to flavorful effect but do have their place as-is.
Does that sound about right? Maybe I'm projecting my biases onto my reading of the room.
Yeah, that sounds about right. And several of my proposals check several of those boxes.
I.E, make Shuricats 18" RF2, but drop to Str3. That extends the range at the cost of punch, unless you get within 9" since 4 shots at Str3 should do equal to more damage then 2 shots at str4. This is also far more flavorful since shurikens shouldn't have the same punch as Bolters, but should have more shots.
Then I'd give Guardians the option to take 2 weapon platforms at their minimum squad size (still 10), and a third at max squad size (20).
I would only entertain the option for taking Lasblasters if it came with a new Gaurdian box set to include those weapons. As it stands, however, I'd prefer a new box just to include Storm Guardian options instead.
-
Honestly Storm Guardians just need to be removed entirely. They're a stupid concept in the first place and have NEVER worked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellebore wrote: It's sometimes hard to look at something in isolation.
I'd do more than just give guardian defenders a longer range weapon. I'd rearrange guardian militia units entirely.
Guardians have a presence in every slot except elites -
Autarch (not technically a guardian, but one of the only leaders of the guardian units)
Defenders
Storm
Windriders
Vypers
Support weapon battery
War Walkers
Tanks
Wave serpents
For a milita, they're a pretty complete army, which is good because the black guardians are the main Ulthwe force....
So I would do something like this:
Defenders (5-15)
Choose one of the following weapon options:
Lasblaster (24" Assault4)
Shuriken catapult (18" Assaiult2)
Heavy weapon platforms: you may take one per 5 guardians. They shoot independently of the unit (a bit like a tau drone).
Storm guardians (5-20)
Choose one of the following weapon options:
Shuriken blaster (Assault 12" S3 AP-1 Assault 3)
Shuriken pistol + Aeldari blades/chainblades (+1A, 6 to wound -1AP)
Plasma grenades, Krak grenades
One in every 5 storm guardians may replace their weapons with one of the following:
Fusion gun
Flamer
Star rifle (Assault 2 18" S6 AP-3 D2)
Storm guardians may take melta bombs +x pts each
Dire Avengers:
Special rule: bladestorm - if they don't move at all, their catapults count as Heavy 4
Swooping hawks
Special Rule: Lightstorm - every 6 rolled to hit counts as S6
I am all for adding to the range of weapons the eldar use, rather than keeping them constrained to the same set all the time. They've got millions of years of tech to plunder which means they should have a huge back catalogue of weird weapons to draw on. The DAoT only lasted a few thousand...
Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.
Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.
Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.
Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad
And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.
Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.
I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.
Bharring wrote: Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.
Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.
Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad
And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.
Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.
I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.
Breachers have their own issues but at least have distinctive rules to give them a place compared to Fire Warriors. Whether they're good at it is a different topic.
Storm Guardians, meanwhile, have bad fluff and rules and role. That's the trifecta for a unit that shouldn't exist. Sometimes the mercy killing is better than holding on.
Regarding Dire Avengers it makes sense they're supposed to take and hold as their role based on three key points:
1. Max firepower is not affected whether you move or advance
2. Overwatch is on a better value
3. The squad can purchase a 5++
Any of those on their own doesn't say much, but the unit has all three.
Making them just slightly better on the offense when holding is simply a good idea to me.
Bharring wrote: Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.
Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.
Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad
And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.
Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.
I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.
Breachers have their own issues but at least have distinctive rules to give them a place compared to Fire Warriors. Whether they're good at it is a different topic.
Storm Guardians, meanwhile, have bad fluff and rules and role. That's the trifecta for a unit that shouldn't exist. Sometimes the mercy killing is better than holding on.
Parts of their fluff is bad. Other parts, not so much. Some Guardians should be kitted to man weapons platforms, others to breach. The problem is the fluff that Storm Guardians all take CCWs.
Their rules are bad. That one is true.
Their role is not bad. It's blindingly obvious. Close-ranged specialists - whether that's CC, Melta, Flamers, or whatever - is an entirely reasonable role.
They *should* exist, as per above - they just need changes.
Regarding Dire Avengers it makes sense they're supposed to take and hold as their role based on three key points:
1. Max firepower is not affected whether you move or advance
2. Overwatch is on a better value
3. The squad can purchase a 5++
Any of those on their own doesn't say much, but the unit has all three.
Making them just slightly better on the offense when holding is simply a good idea to me.
Which makes them better at holding on the move. Meaning, they advance, shoot their guns, then pick apart the countercharge - then move on next turn.
With 18" range and GEQ survivability at MEQ prices, they're clearly meant to stay on the move, and not trade shots stationary turn-after-turn. The `Heavy 3` idea only helps when trading shots stationary. At which point, the other guys either back off outside 18", or close in within 12". Even Tac Marines beat them in a firefight at 12" range per point.
Bharring wrote: Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.
Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.
Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad
And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.
Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.
I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.
Breachers have their own issues but at least have distinctive rules to give them a place compared to Fire Warriors. Whether they're good at it is a different topic.
Storm Guardians, meanwhile, have bad fluff and rules and role. That's the trifecta for a unit that shouldn't exist. Sometimes the mercy killing is better than holding on.
Parts of their fluff is bad. Other parts, not so much. Some Guardians should be kitted to man weapons platforms, others to breach. The problem is the fluff that Storm Guardians all take CCWs.
Their rules are bad. That one is true.
Their role is not bad. It's blindingly obvious. Close-ranged specialists - whether that's CC, Melta, Flamers, or whatever - is an entirely reasonable role.
They *should* exist, as per above - they just need changes.
Regarding Dire Avengers it makes sense they're supposed to take and hold as their role based on three key points:
1. Max firepower is not affected whether you move or advance
2. Overwatch is on a better value
3. The squad can purchase a 5++
Any of those on their own doesn't say much, but the unit has all three.
Making them just slightly better on the offense when holding is simply a good idea to me.
Which makes them better at holding on the move. Meaning, they advance, shoot their guns, then pick apart the countercharge - then move on next turn.
With 18" range and GEQ survivability at MEQ prices, they're clearly meant to stay on the move, and not trade shots stationary turn-after-turn. The `Heavy 3` idea only helps when trading shots stationary. At which point, the other guys either back off outside 18", or close in within 12". Even Tac Marines beat them in a firefight at 12" range per point.
The army already has a bunch of close range specialists (especially on the Melta end). The dying race sending a militia off to die is just auto bad fluff.
I'm actually curious WHAT in their fluff you would consider "good".
Seriously, nobody will miss them outside 1% of the super hardcore fluffbunnies. Hell I'm pretty sure most of them wouldn't care either.
Back on Dire Avengers, though. Having a bad opponent back things away from 18" is a good thing, so I'm not sure that's a negative point for the rule partly doing its job.
Bharring wrote: Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.
Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.
Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad
And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.
Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.
I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.
Breachers have their own issues but at least have distinctive rules to give them a place compared to Fire Warriors. Whether they're good at it is a different topic.
Storm Guardians, meanwhile, have bad fluff and rules and role. That's the trifecta for a unit that shouldn't exist. Sometimes the mercy killing is better than holding on.
Parts of their fluff is bad. Other parts, not so much. Some Guardians should be kitted to man weapons platforms, others to breach. The problem is the fluff that Storm Guardians all take CCWs.
Their rules are bad. That one is true.
Their role is not bad. It's blindingly obvious. Close-ranged specialists - whether that's CC, Melta, Flamers, or whatever - is an entirely reasonable role.
They *should* exist, as per above - they just need changes.
Regarding Dire Avengers it makes sense they're supposed to take and hold as their role based on three key points:
1. Max firepower is not affected whether you move or advance
2. Overwatch is on a better value
3. The squad can purchase a 5++
Any of those on their own doesn't say much, but the unit has all three.
Making them just slightly better on the offense when holding is simply a good idea to me.
Which makes them better at holding on the move. Meaning, they advance, shoot their guns, then pick apart the countercharge - then move on next turn.
With 18" range and GEQ survivability at MEQ prices, they're clearly meant to stay on the move, and not trade shots stationary turn-after-turn. The `Heavy 3` idea only helps when trading shots stationary. At which point, the other guys either back off outside 18", or close in within 12". Even Tac Marines beat them in a firefight at 12" range per point.
The army already has a bunch of close range specialists (especially on the Melta end).
Like what?
The couple Fire Dragon squads spread across the the entire Craftworld?
The handful of Honored Dead whom risk damnation if you put them in the fray, and whos guns literally damage reality itself when used?
That's like saying Tac Marines shouldn't be allowed to carry heavy weapons because Terminators already can, and there's plenty of them.
The dying race sending a militia off to die is just auto bad fluff.
Yes it is. Which is why the fluff says they're sent off to fight battles where they *won't* die.
I'm actually curious WHAT in their fluff you would consider "good".
The idea that your militia will need to fulfill more than one role.
Seriously, nobody will miss them outside 1% of the super hardcore fluffbunnies.
Hell I'm pretty sure most of them wouldn't care either.
I wouldn't call me a hardcore fluffbunny. And Storm Guardians have started showing up in top-tier lists since the drop to 6ppm.
Back on Dire Avengers, though. Having a bad opponent back things away from 18" is a good thing, so I'm not sure that's a negative point for the rule partly doing its job.
Not if the Dire Avengers loses firepower if they had to move, and the unit moving doesn't. Or if the Dire Avengers then need to come out of cover and/or stepping back 6" puts them in cover. Most things in most cases will prefer to close on the DAs, but there are cases where that's not true.
Storm Guardians used to kind of work. Back when you could stick a warlock in the squad, you could kit them out with either 2 flamers and the destructor psychic power (basically a heavy flamer once upon a time), or you could give them 2 fusion guns and a singing spear (which was an okayish anti-tank squad back when vehicles could potentially die to a single shot.)
Now that warlocks aren't tied to guardian units and a couple of flamers or meltaguns isn't enough to seriously threaten most targets, they're somewhat less appealing. Basically, they had a role once, but they haven't changed with the times to keep that role or find a new one.
If you were to lower the squad size to 5 and let them take either 1 or 2 special weapons per 5 bodies, you could take a couple of units in a batallion, stick them in a wave serpent, and use them as a cheap objective clearer (flamers) or moderate vehicle threat (4 fusion guns coming out of a serpent isn't terrible).
I'm not one for using abstract rule mechanics as justification, but as 'troops', Avengers are expected to stand still and defend objectives.
Aside from that, the avengers were the first aspect and I see as close to a 'tactical' aspect as you can get. All the others have more particular niches that aren't always useful.
I don't see a point in creating 'lesser' lasblasters - corsairs use normal lasblasters. Storm guardians use the same fusion gun as the fire dragons, and avengers only started using special different catapults a few editions ago when they had to admit that the design decision to make catapults 12" was a bad one, but still refused to actually change the gun...
IMO it's not the weapon that's special, it's the aspect training.
Aspect warriors are clearly modelled after shaolin temples/schools and methods of fighting. so I see them as kung fu masters that can use any item as a deadly weapon.
The star spoon aspect warriors have built a particular set of skills around using spoons in supernaturally deadly ways, not building uniquely special spoons they can stab with.
Which is why I prefer scorpion swords to just be chainswords and the scorpions all the have 'crushing blow', which gives them +1 strength.
Exarch weapons are the 'green destiny' named weapons with special abilities that are even more awesome in the hands of a master.
Things like bladestorm are the kind of skills that imo show why a dire avenger isn't just a shmuck with a catapult.
There's no real reason a guardian couldn't pick up a deathspinner and pull the psychic trigger, in the same way that they already can pick up a fusion gun.
In fact, I think that those craftworlds relying exclusively on guardians would be more than willing to hand out those weapons in times of crisis.
Hellebore wrote: I'm not one for using abstract rule mechanics as justification, but as 'troops', Avengers are expected to stand still and defend objectives.
I disagree with you here. What is and isn't a "troop" is pretty arbitrary. Some swarmy, some are elite. Some are shooty, some are choppy. You wouldn't expect a harlequin troupe unit to stand on an objective and stay there, right? Encouraging a (theoretically) common eldar unit to sit still or else give up its offense actively encourages eldar to behave as a static army rather than a mobile one. You're creating a fluff/crunch mismatch.
(As opposed to letting avengers utilize battle focus or fall back and shoot which makes them "feel" mobile.)
Aside from that, the avengers were the first aspect and I see as close to a 'tactical' aspect as you can get. All the others have more particular niches that aren't always useful.
True. That's why the idea of bumping them up to 2 attacks is kind of appealing. It wouldn't do much for them mechanically, but it's a fluffy nod to the "balance" thing avengers and Asurmen have going on.
I don't see a point in creating 'lesser' lasblasters - corsairs use normal lasblasters. Storm guardians use the same fusion gun as the fire dragons, and avengers only started using special different catapults a few editions ago when they had to admit that the design decision to make catapults 12" was a bad one, but still refused to actually change the gun...
IMO it's not the weapon that's special, it's the aspect training.
Aspect warriors are clearly modelled after shaolin temples/schools and methods of fighting. so I see them as kung fu masters that can use any item as a deadly weapon.
The star spoon aspect warriors have built a particular set of skills around using spoons in supernaturally deadly ways, not building uniquely special spoons they can stab with.
Which is why I prefer scorpion swords to just be chainswords and the scorpions all the have 'crushing blow', which gives them +1 strength.
My concerns with giving guardians full on lasblasters are:
A.) Corsairs have them, but they cost 16 points apiece when you do so. 160 points for 10 guardians (or even 80 points for 5 if we lower the minimum squad size) makes them a very expensive troop choice that becomes even less survivable point for point.
B.) I haven't run the numbers, but I feel like giving them swooping hawk levels of shooting is straight up more powerful at all ranges than shuriken catapult shooting. To my mind, swapping a little killing power for 12" of range while keeping the unit price mostly the same is more interesting than choosing between the good gun and the cheap gun.
I actually mostly agree with your take on training vs tech for aspect warriors, but I draw a different conclusion than you do. For almost all aspect gear, slapping the rules on the gear rather than the unit is irrelevant as the only unit that can use most aspect gear without being an aspect warrior is the autarch (who spent time with the relevant aspect shrines and presumably retained some of his training as an autarch). The only exceptions are avengers' shuriken catapults (used all over the place) and dragons' fusion guns (used by storm guardians). The difference between an avengers with a catapult and a guardian with a catapult is 6" of range and overwatching on 5+. I interpret that extra 6" of range as being the result of the avenger's training. Ditto the +1 strength on the scorpion swords. So you could use up extra space typing out a bunch of special rules, or you could just write 18" instead of 12" next to the catapult and User + 1 instead of User next to the chainsword.
The reason I go on that particular tangent is to point out that, if we wanted to give guardians assault 2 lasblasters, it could very well represent the guardian simply being a worse shot than a full time aspect warrior like a swooping hawk. The hawk has the training to make his lasblaster Assault 4 rather than Assault 2.
There's no real reason a guardian couldn't pick up a deathspinner and pull the psychic trigger, in the same way that they already can pick up a fusion gun.
In fact, I think that those craftworlds relying exclusively on guardians would be more than willing to hand out those weapons in times of crisis.
Probably true. If nothing else, guardians should really probably have heavier armor. My headcanon excuse for not giving everyone a death spinner instead of a shuriken catapult is that the spectacular lethal power of such weapons would be too much of a gruesome spectacle for the limited version of the war mask used by many guardians. Sure, a catapult slices a guy to ribbons, but the spinner lets him dice himself in his struggles to escape its monofilament wires. Which is, admittedly, a kind of weak explanation. Eldar are few enough in number and long-lived enough to stockpile as much of any given weapon as they need to. Chalk it up to the same logic that has armies fighting with power swords.
I designed an entire Eldar army around the jetbike profile 10 years ago - except they wore wraithguard style exosuits with the guns underslung.
Those rules on an infantryman, imo, reflected the high-tech Eldar way of war.
They actually looked a lot like the shadow spectres actually, before those existed.
If you could mount one heavy weapon per 5 in the unit that wasn't a cannon or scatter laser, then you can drop the need for foot guardians entirely.
I have no real problem with jetbikes or warwalkers, and those two units are pretty much how I would protect my civilians - heavy vehicle armour and weapons between them and the enemy...
Bharring wrote: Or just let them take Shuriken Catapaults... so your choice is Defenders with a Platform or Storms with special weapons. Keeps the "Eldar specialize further" vibe while dropping the silly parts of Storm Guardians.
Them *always* having CCW/pistol instead of a storming gun ("shotgun-like" has gotten ridiculed a lot here, but nobody's complained about T'au Breachers and similar) is stupid, and should be fixed.
Mixed up with a bunch of other changes here:
-Add lesser Lasblasters at 24" A2 S3 AP0 as a Defender option
-Add current Shuriken Catapaults to Storms
-Make Defenders 5-20
-Allow 1 Heavy per 5 in a Defender squad
And suddenly, Guardians make much more sense as militia being used for desperate actions or specialists or whatnot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heavy 3 seems more reasonable and something I'm on board for with Dire Avengers, a unit that seems very much meant for taking objectives and holding them.
Taking, sure. Holding, though, isn't their forte.
I'd rather any change double down on their move-and-shoot capability. Giving them `Heavy 3/4 if they don't move` does nothing unless you're using them as line troops fighting a pitched battle - which is something CWE should always lose at.
Breachers have their own issues but at least have distinctive rules to give them a place compared to Fire Warriors. Whether they're good at it is a different topic.
Storm Guardians, meanwhile, have bad fluff and rules and role. That's the trifecta for a unit that shouldn't exist. Sometimes the mercy killing is better than holding on.
Parts of their fluff is bad. Other parts, not so much. Some Guardians should be kitted to man weapons platforms, others to breach. The problem is the fluff that Storm Guardians all take CCWs.
Their rules are bad. That one is true.
Their role is not bad. It's blindingly obvious. Close-ranged specialists - whether that's CC, Melta, Flamers, or whatever - is an entirely reasonable role.
They *should* exist, as per above - they just need changes.
Regarding Dire Avengers it makes sense they're supposed to take and hold as their role based on three key points:
1. Max firepower is not affected whether you move or advance
2. Overwatch is on a better value
3. The squad can purchase a 5++
Any of those on their own doesn't say much, but the unit has all three.
Making them just slightly better on the offense when holding is simply a good idea to me.
Which makes them better at holding on the move. Meaning, they advance, shoot their guns, then pick apart the countercharge - then move on next turn.
With 18" range and GEQ survivability at MEQ prices, they're clearly meant to stay on the move, and not trade shots stationary turn-after-turn. The `Heavy 3` idea only helps when trading shots stationary. At which point, the other guys either back off outside 18", or close in within 12". Even Tac Marines beat them in a firefight at 12" range per point.
The army already has a bunch of close range specialists (especially on the Melta end).
Like what?
The couple Fire Dragon squads spread across the the entire Craftworld?
The handful of Honored Dead whom risk damnation if you put them in the fray, and whos guns literally damage reality itself when used?
That's like saying Tac Marines shouldn't be allowed to carry heavy weapons because Terminators already can, and there's plenty of them.
The dying race sending a militia off to die is just auto bad fluff.
Yes it is. Which is why the fluff says they're sent off to fight battles where they *won't* die.
I'm actually curious WHAT in their fluff you would consider "good".
The idea that your militia will need to fulfill more than one role.
Seriously, nobody will miss them outside 1% of the super hardcore fluffbunnies.
Hell I'm pretty sure most of them wouldn't care either.
I wouldn't call me a hardcore fluffbunny. And Storm Guardians have started showing up in top-tier lists since the drop to 6ppm.
Back on Dire Avengers, though. Having a bad opponent back things away from 18" is a good thing, so I'm not sure that's a negative point for the rule partly doing its job.
Not if the Dire Avengers loses firepower if they had to move, and the unit moving doesn't. Or if the Dire Avengers then need to come out of cover and/or stepping back 6" puts them in cover. Most things in most cases will prefer to close on the DAs, but there are cases where that's not true.
1. Yeah, those Fire Dragons and Wraithguard compared to the simple militia.
2. Yeah Tactical Marines don't actually carry Assault Cannons or CMLs or Heavy Flamers. Look at that! Two of those would be bad weapons on Tactical Marines too so that doesn't help your case.
3. Your militia in a dying race doesn't get more than one role because of Aspect Warriors existing.
4. Please show me where the Storm Guardians have been showing up.
5. You're thinking incorrectly. You're not losing firepower if you move, you're granted additional firepower if you don't.
Martel732 wrote: Not advanced enough. There are no rules in the game for the kinds of weapons Eldar should probably have.
Go play another game.
Please stop trying to equate fluff and rules, this topic is about discussing Shuriken catapults, not fluff.
On topic, I actually don't mind shuriken catapults as a concept weapon, certainly iconic to guardian squads but honestly it wouldn't be the worse idea to change avenger shuriken catapults to assault 2 24" range to even begin to justify their cost.
Maybe a weapon support platform which increases the range of the guardian squads weapons?
I think the issue is that GW haven't fixed what they broke in 3rd edition. And having to introduce 'Avenger' catapults compounds the problem.
Why not just make the standard catapult
24" Range, S4, AP-1*, Assault 2
*maybe AP-1, dispensing with pseudo-rending for all shuriken weapon (cannon gets AP-2), otherwise AP0 and keeping pseudo-rending.
Then Dire Avengers get an ability where they get to fire an extra shot (or fire twice!) within half range (just bake it into their current aspect rule)
This all comes back to my opinion that aspects are not portrayed as effective as they should be.
A primaris is physically like 2 marines - an aspect warrior should be double skill\attack\output a guardian.
There are imo only 2 aspect units that come close to that - dragons and reapers.
Eldar will be out strengthed and out numbered every time. Super specialist aspect units need to be 2-3x the power suggested by their unit size. They don't have the resilience to survive long enough to generate that power over a few turns.
They need to be able to dispatch their target with overwhelming force quickly before they crumble.
Ergo, a dire avenger needs to output twice the damage of a similarly sized guardian unit. Otherwise they're pretty pointless
I think for a start, all Aspects should be on a 3+ save, and have 2 attacks base.
Shuriken Catapult standardised as above.
Then you modify for their Aspect training, especially for the 'original six' aspects, e.g.
Scorpions get +1S (chainsword is made the same as the Imperial one)
Banshees get +1Mv, +1A
Dire Avengers - fire twice within 1/2 range, or if they stood still (Fast Shot!)
Hawks are pretty unique already, not sure where to go with them currently
Dragons are ok with their big target bustin'
Reapers are ok
Exarchs as they currently are get renamed "Aspect Shrine Janitor"; having to clean all the poop gives them an extra wound, and they know where all the special equipment is.
Phoenix Lords statline are renamed {Aspect Warrior} Exarch, equipment is chosen from the shrine Exarch weapons they have; get their Aspect/Janitor rules plus a unique Exarch rule depending on aspect.
Phoenix Lords are introduced with a basic statline of
Mv7, WS2+, BS2+, S5, T5, W7, A5, Ld9, 2+
Each get modified as per their current differences (better stat here or there, their special rules etc.) Asurmen Ld10.
Hellebore wrote: I agree conceptually although I'm sure there's nitpicking over what exact rules each unit would use.
Phoenix lords should definitely be eldar daemon princes though.
For this thread though bottom line is that the catapult should be better and avengers should be better than guardians
Agreed on both parts.
Pheonix lords are truly iconic eldar units and models at this point, right alongside the avatar. I have no doubt when they're updating (for my great grand children to enjoy) they'll get some good treatment.
As for dire avengers, I adore the models and own a fair amount. Having a squad storm out of a wave serpent scything troops down is a real nice memory, also with bladestorm
I'd love to see any Dire Avenger special rule highlight their adaptability.
With Hawks, I could see LasBlasters becomming A3 with Hawks being allowed to fire them one extra time - especially if A4 Lasblasters on Guardians would be too much withiout a price hike (debateable). As for an actual change, I really miss their grenades. It made them a toolbox that really needs to get close to use their kit to the fullest. It's why I kinda wish LasBlasters were still RF2 instead of A4 - so Hawks can either harass at range or close in and do "real" damage.
I wish there were multiple tiers of Exarch, but that'll never happened. Maybe the in-squad one is "Just got Lost on the Path last week", whereas the HQ one is "BAMF".
If we had an HQ Exarch, he'd contend with the Autarch for a slot. Not that that's impossible - SM have Captains, Chapter Masters, Chaplains, Tech Marines, and more in the "Leader/Beatstick" role (to varying degrees).
The Autarch should have better support abilities - like their current reroll-1s bubble and their CP regen. So that works. The Exarch could have a reroll-1s bubble, but it should only impact his Aspect - and no CP regen. You could go even further and say no Warlord Trait (or Warlord Trait affects only <Aspect>.
As for kit, Autarchs should still have baseline Aspect gear from most Shrines as options - power/chain swords, ASCs, Fusion Guns, etc. The Exarch should start with baseline Aspect gear of his shrine, plus a host of options that align - so everything the current Exarch has, but you could add additional fitting options (maybe a Reaper Exarch takes a Scatter Laser or Brightlance, but you won't see him with a Scorpion Claw).
As for statlines, I wouldn't mind the Autarch and Farseer (among others) go to a WS/BS 3+ - but that won't happen. The Exarch would certainly be WS/BS 2+, Sv 3+ with the same rules/stat buffs as their Aspects, but otherwise the current Autarch statline with +1A (or give Autarchs -1A).
Daba wrote: I think for a start, all Aspects should be on a 3+ save, and have 2 attacks base.
Shuriken Catapult standardised as above.
Then you modify for their Aspect training, especially for the 'original six' aspects, e.g.
Scorpions get +1S (chainsword is made the same as the Imperial one)
Banshees get +1Mv, +1A
Dire Avengers - fire twice within 1/2 range, or if they stood still (Fast Shot!)
Hawks are pretty unique already, not sure where to go with them currently
Dragons are ok with their big target bustin'
Reapers are ok
Exarchs as they currently are get renamed "Aspect Shrine Janitor"; having to clean all the poop gives them an extra wound, and they know where all the special equipment is.
Phoenix Lords statline are renamed {Aspect Warrior} Exarch, equipment is chosen from the shrine Exarch weapons they have; get their Aspect/Janitor rules plus a unique Exarch rule depending on aspect.
Phoenix Lords are introduced with a basic statline of
Mv7, WS2+, BS2+, S5, T5, W7, A5, Ld9, 2+
Each get modified as per their current differences (better stat here or there, their special rules etc.) Asurmen Ld10.
The fact Aspects have different saves is a good thing. However, some need to be tweaked I do agree. Scorpions for example need regular Infiltrate back instead of the Deep Strike they have now.
Daba wrote: I think for a start, all Aspects should be on a 3+ save, and have 2 attacks base.
Shuriken Catapult standardised as above.
Then you modify for their Aspect training, especially for the 'original six' aspects, e.g.
Scorpions get +1S (chainsword is made the same as the Imperial one)
Banshees get +1Mv, +1A
Dire Avengers - fire twice within 1/2 range, or if they stood still (Fast Shot!)
Hawks are pretty unique already, not sure where to go with them currently
Dragons are ok with their big target bustin'
Reapers are ok
Exarchs as they currently are get renamed "Aspect Shrine Janitor"; having to clean all the poop gives them an extra wound, and they know where all the special equipment is.
Phoenix Lords statline are renamed {Aspect Warrior} Exarch, equipment is chosen from the shrine Exarch weapons they have; get their Aspect/Janitor rules plus a unique Exarch rule depending on aspect.
Phoenix Lords are introduced with a basic statline of
Mv7, WS2+, BS2+, S5, T5, W7, A5, Ld9, 2+
Each get modified as per their current differences (better stat here or there, their special rules etc.) Asurmen Ld10.
The fact Aspects have different saves is a good thing. However, some need to be tweaked I do agree. Scorpions for example need regular Infiltrate back instead of the Deep Strike they have now.
Absolutely.
Scorpions should be ASM who infiltrate instead of jumping around with a rocket strapped to their backs. Now, they're just ASM with much less movement but much cheaper.
I disagree on the Assault Marine comparison because of the Jump Packs being auto upgrades. Infiltration was a niche of it's own right for any edition, and Eldar getting use of both Rangers (who really should just have an additional Scout move but I'm open to them having both rules) and Scorpions to do that is a cool thing.
Scorpions are kind of weird this edition. Neither scorpions nor banshees really kill things very well. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Banshees serve a niche by shutting down overwatch and being fast enough to to start getting into combat on turn 2 (turn 1 with psychic support). They're "tacklers."
Scorpions are theoretically meant to be the deepstriking variant of a melee "tackler" that comes in from weird angles instead of charging up the middle like banshees, but a 9" charge with limited options for making the charge more reliable makes scorpions a medium-cost-low-benefit unit. You're just gambling on a 9" charge in hopes of tying something up for a turn with a unit that has roughly the melee abilities of an assault marine squad.
So my crazy, probably inadvisable suggestions for scorpions revolve around making them better at specializing as ambushers. Either...
A.) Let them subtract the turn number from their deepstrike distance (so they'd deepstrike more than 7" away on turn 2 or more than 6" away on turn 3), or...
B.) Only let them arrive within 7" of a table edge, but let them arrive closer to enemy units than usual. Letting them get as close as they want is probably too much, but making let them arrive more than 6" away?
Option A makes them more likely to ambush things anywhere on the table, but you're rewarded for holding off an extra turn before showing up. Option B forces them to sneak on from outside of the battle field (sort of like outflanking back in the day), but it makes life scary for enemy units castled up near the rear. So those russes or devastators or what have you have to consider deploying farther forward or holding back rear screening units to avoid being tackled.
Or, for a really weird option, give them something like the pre-5th edition mandrake deployment where you basically deployed a few blips and could then deploy the squad next to said blip before reserves would be forced to arrive. If an enemy unit gets within X" of one of the blips, you could either deploy the unit immediately (yep, that was them!), or you could remove the blip (nope, false readings). The intended result of this one is that it keeps your scorpions safe from shooting as they move up the table, and can then potentially get closer than 9" to charge something in the midfield. It makes them countercharging midfielders in contrast to the deployment-zone-assaulting banshees.
As I continue to think on how to evolve eldar weaponry in the same way the 'I can't believe we've stagnated' imperium keeps 'discovering new weapons I'm thinking something like this:
Shuriken pistol 12" Pistol 2 S4 D1 AP0 6s to wound -1 AP Shuriken catapult 18" Assault 2 S4 D1 AP0 6s to wound -1 AP Shuriken cannon 30" Assault 4 S5 D1 AP-1 6s to wound -2 AP Shrieker ammo 30" Assault 1 S5 D1 AP-2 Always wounds on a 2+
Each time an INFANTRY model is slain by an attack made
with this weapon, its unit suffers D3 mortal wounds. If any
models in a unit are slain by this weapon, subtract 2 from that
unit's Leadership characteristic until the end of the turn.
Shuriken blaster 12" Assault 3 S4 D1 AP0 6s to wound -1 AP Shuriken arbalest 24" Rapid fire 1 S5 D1 AP -1
As for scorpions and banshees, I tend to look at what they are supposed to do:
Banshees - paralyse the enemy and carve them up with potent power weapons - take on smaller numbers of resilient foes
scorpions - ambush the enemy and go through them like a woodchipper - take on outnumbering odds of light troops
To represent these they need something like:
Banshees: Masks +1 to hit on charge (targets can't defend themselves - rerolls 1s to hit if at 2+ to hit already), enemy can't overwatch
2A
Scorpions:
Always count as charging when in cover, S4, A2, Chainswords (+1A for a total of 3 base attacks), 6s to wound are -1AP (eldar chainswords are basically spinning shuriken bludgeons). +1 to hit inside cover
If scorpions choose to charge someone in cover, they gain +3" to their charge (this gives a situational bonus to them during deepstrike).
@ Hellebore: I like the Pistol 2 idea, but if we are going to keep the 6s to wound give an AP bonus, just keep it Ap-3 as now. But personally, I think all Shuriken weapon should be AP-1 and have lower Str, but more shots.
Catapults would be ideal (per fluff) as 18" S3 RF2 AP1 You'd ger 2 shots at 18", which currently Gaurdians don't get, but at 9" you'd get FOUR shots, albeit at a lower Str, but reliable AP. With Battle Focus, Guardians would be able to Advance and still fire their Catapults with no penalty.
So they'd have better range, but still be more deadly up close.
Dire Avengers with a 24" S3 RF2 AP-1 catapult would be even better, since they would get double shots at 12'
Shuriken cannon should be 24" S5 RF3 AP-1 Pistols can be 12" S3 Pistol 2 AP-1
I know Shuriken weapons have been Assault weapons for several editions and they 100% made sense in those editions, but with the way RF works in 8E, combined with Battle Focus, I feel that Shuriken are far better represented as RF weapons, not Assault. They also should not have the same Str as a Bolter, so trade 1 point of Str for more shots at close range
Bharring wrote: You could allow Scorpions to arrive T1, and within 9", but not be allowed to Charge, Fight, or Shoot that turn if they do so.
This would represent Infiltrate. They get in position more readily, but don't rocket into combat like "actual" deepstrikers.
I agree mostly, they should have their "Master of Stealth" ability reworded to function just like Space Marine Scouts or Nurglings: During Deployment they can be set up anywhere outside 9" of any enemy unit. I would leave it at that, and not restrict their ability to shoot/assault. There are other units that can deploy like this and they don't get restricted and melee is hardly OP in this or any other recent edition of 40k. A 9" charge is still far from a guarantee and Screens exist
Hellebore wrote: I was basically starting with bolt weapons and giving up 6" for other abilities.
S3 with more shots is interesting and a big departure from history (shuriken have been s4 as long as bolters have).
I'm just thinking about how skyrunners would work - a squad of 6 with cannons is putting out 36 shots at 12".... After moving 16
It would be a lot of shots, yes. But that is why I'd lower the Str. At S5, you are no longer wounding T3 on 2s and light vehicles with T5/6 are harder to wound. And by being RF, you only get those numbers by being close, which is something Windriders do not like doing, but can work with synergy from other units (as is the Eldar way)
And while I get that Shurikens have been S4 for as long a bolters, that just never made sense to me. How does a molecule thin razor disc have the same "punch" as a .75mm caliber, rocket propelled explosive round?
Just based on what they are in the fluff, those 2 weapons should not have the same kinetic force. The mass difference alone makes the physics wonky. But by lowing the Str to 3, it gives us some additional design space to add more shots to not only compensate game-wise, but also feel more like the sheer volume of discs spat out per volley.
Shuriken catapults were in effect gravitic (rather than magnetic) railguns.
The wargear description says a single shuriken can penetrate several inches of plasteel armour.
A single molecule disk (which is a meme the later writers put in from 3rd edition, compared to the superior 2nd edition description) doesn't have the punch of a .75cal round, or even a normal round. But in the same 'timespace' it has fired enough rounds that it's put the same amount of mass (or more) than the 0.75cal, optimised to slice through armour.
It's basically a cross between a rail gun and a sand blaster. The originator fired stacked shuriken that were mono molecular edged but not thick.
Molecular thin wire is s6 or higher in death spinners and it's not being fired under gravitic acceleration (shadow Weavers drift down in their target....).
The modern description is effectively a death spinner railgun that fires separate discs rather then long threads.
Those discs would leave monomolecular tunnels through their target like a high energy particle through an astronaut's skull.
The ammo looks to be about a foot long 300mm. If the discs were a 10th of a mm thick (not mono, but still thin) there'd be 3000 rounds in the stick.
I wonder how you'd go about removing a molecule thick disc embedded half way through a human body...
Surviving a shuriken strike might be worse than just dying from it....
Having said all that, I do like the visual of lots of shots coming from a unit the way you described.
I don't think the cannon needs to be s6 either - it wasn't before 3rd.
I think they need to differentiate the heavy weapons anyway. Too many s6.
Cannons were range 40" s5 -3 dam d4 2 sustained fire
Multi lasers were 60" s6 -1 dam1 6shots (a huge deal as it couldn't jam and maximised it's number of hits)
Hellebore wrote: I was basically starting with bolt weapons and giving up 6" for other abilities.
S3 with more shots is interesting and a big departure from history (shuriken have been s4 as long as bolters have).
I'm just thinking about how skyrunners would work - a squad of 6 with cannons is putting out 36 shots at 12".... After moving 16
It would be a lot of shots, yes. But that is why I'd lower the Str. At S5, you are no longer wounding T3 on 2s and light vehicles with T5/6 are harder to wound. And by being RF, you only get those numbers by being close, which is something Windriders do not like doing, but can work with synergy from other units (as is the Eldar way)
And while I get that Shurikens have been S4 for as long a bolters, that just never made sense to me.
How does a molecule thin razor disc have the same "punch" as a .75mm caliber, rocket propelled explosive round?
Just based on what they are in the fluff, those 2 weapons should not have the same kinetic force. The mass difference alone makes the physics wonky.
But by lowing the Str to 3, it gives us some additional design space to add more shots to not only compensate game-wise, but also feel more like the sheer volume of discs spat out per volley.
-
It is not so much that a shuriken has more mass or energy than the bolter round, but that its mass/energy has a far higher sectional density for cutting/penetrating.
Just imagine I hit you with a 1kg iron ball as fast as I could throw it.
Then I hit you with a .1kg iron needle as fast as I could throw it.
Which would pierce you better? The needle would. It is lighter but I could throw it faster and all the energy of the impact is concentrated in a tiny area. So the force per square/meter would be vastly higher than if you were hit with a heavy slow round object.
A shuriken catapult should be pretty brutal to be hit with. If anything they should make them have -1 or -2 AP and less shots. So whatever they hit gets shredded. Then Dire avengers get some special ability like blade storm or whatever.
warpedpig wrote: It is not so much that a shuriken has more mass or energy than the bolter round, but that its mass/energy has a far higher sectional density for cutting/penetrating.
Just imagine I hit you with a 1kg iron ball as fast as I could throw it.
Then I hit you with a .1kg iron needle as fast as I could throw it.
Which would pierce you better? The needle would. It is lighter but I could throw it faster and all the energy of the impact is concentrated in a tiny area. So the force per square/meter would be vastly higher than if you were hit with a heavy slow round object.
A shuriken catapult should be pretty brutal to be hit with. If anything they should make them have -1 or -2 AP and less shots. So whatever they hit gets shredded. Then Dire avengers get some special ability like blade storm or whatever.
The needle might be more likely to pierce through skin, but he iron ball would be more likely to kill. the greater mass holds the energy imparted into it better than a smaller one, and while the needle puts more energy into a smaller point if it doesn't hit anything vital than that doesn't necessarily result in an important wound, where as the iron ball can break bones as long as it's not a glancing hit. It's the same reason an Arquebus is actually more likely to kill you than a modern 22 pistol: The 22 might be more accurate and have more pinning thanks to shaped bullets, but the arquebus is a bigger caliber and thus more stopping power (which is what's actually going to kill a person).
In that sense, Galef has the right idea, although I'd argue RF2 18" for the catapult might be over kill.
No. We don’t shoot huge balls at each other. We shoot high velocity small caliber pointed bullets. Speed is power.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not to mention the bullet destabilizes and begins to yaw on impact and creates a shockwave of very destructive power that travels through the target. Just look at ballistics test
The kinetic energy is vastly increased by velocity (Ek=1/2m*v²). But an increase in size causes bigger damage channels. That is why there are hollow point rounds and other ammunition that deform on impact. But that is at the cost of penetration.
I suppose that Shurikens would rapidly loose energy on impact and spin off wildly leading to an increased chance of hitting something vital.
The trouble is a Shuriken is absolutely not gonna be accurate over long range. It’s not aerodynamic as much as a bullet. But this lack of stability would make it perfect for causing crazy wound channels on impact. If the Shuriken catapult is 12” range then it should have some serious power. Like -1 or -2 AP and assault 2.
warpedpig wrote: The trouble is a Shuriken is absolutely not gonna be accurate over long range. It’s not aerodynamic as much as a bullet. But this lack of stability would make it perfect for causing crazy wound channels on impact. If the Shuriken catapult is 12” range then it should have some serious power. Like -1 or -2 AP and assault 2.
Depends on how fast it's going (the muzzle velocity). If the catapult mechanism can launch it fast enough, it will outrange a slower velocity weapon even with the lack of ballistics.
Also, this is really more of the Death Spinner's job (the whole point of the razor floss it fires is it messes people up internally really easily). Under 2nd edition, you could roll your initiative to try and dodge it, and then roll your armour save, but if you failed both you just died if you weren't a vehicle, no matter if you were a Guardsman, Hive Tyrant or Abaddon the Despoiler. It also had the heavy flamer template.
Games workshop. Please read this and make Eldar not suck. Making Eldar resort to stupid lists like massive flyer spam is just stupid. Our infantry are garbage.
warpedpig wrote: Games workshop. Please read this and make Eldar not suck. Making Eldar resort to stupid lists like massive flyer spam is just stupid. Our infantry are garbage.
By what measure does Eldar Infantry units suck? All your Troops and Dark Reapers have topped competitive events as Ulthwe and/or Alaitoc, that's excluding the success Wraithguard had as a result of the original Ynnari rules.
Banshees suck. Scorpions suck. Guardians suck. Dire avengers suck. They all melt. They all require tons of CP and buffs to do anything. Meanwhile a regular tactical squad can destroy them with bolters the next turn. They just have no staying power. They melt.
You're playing Craftworlds, right? Not Deathguard? I think we're talking about different factions if you want the units you mentioned to have staying power. Some of their power being locked away inside Stratagems is fine by me, allowing them to get more staying power through Stratagems is great Stratagem design in my book. Dire Avengers have had GT success in the last 6 months, Guardians in the last 12 at least, Tactical Squads have not. Marines also just got the mother of all buffs, compare yourself to CSM, SW, DA or BA instead. You don't get to whine just because you don't have the best infantry in the game. Banshees and Scorpions do suck, it's a shame, I hope that Phoenix Awakening helps them become better for casual play at least, competitive is going to be a Marine game going forwards.
Yeah. Most of our infantry isn't top-tier, but it is pretty good overall. I think part of the issue is that many of our units feel like they have trouble working as intended. Avengers are pretty cool (and even cooler with the new rules), but they can't walk around outside of a transport without dying. So you pay three times the unit's cost to buy them a wave serpent. But then it feels like you're really investing in a serpent (which is a good unit that largely outperforms the avengers) making the avengers themselves feel like an afterthought. And the turn after your avengers leave the serpent, they're still pretty prone to dying. This compared to something like intercessors who are durable enough to maybe stick around for a while regardless of whether or not you give them a transport.
Storm guardians have the same issue but even moreso and are generally taken as a cheap screen/troop tax. We've seen storm guardians in tournament lists, but how often do they have special weapons? Guardian defenders work as blobs, but the 10 man min squad size makes them too expensive to be the efficient source of heavy weapons they're meant to be (as discussed throughout this thread).
It's really about delivery system. When I play my drukhari, the troops are cheap and able to fire out of their transports, so it feels like they contribute throughout the game. My tactical marines can sprinkle some heavy weapon shots across the table and some bolter shots to mid-field, and in cover they maybe even manage to stick around for a turn or two if I've given my opponent more pressing targets. My guardsmen and daemonettes are cheap enough to feel expendable. But my asuryani? With the exception of rangers (whose long range and durability means they can contribute reliably), my trooops just don't feel like they stick around long enough to do much.
I'm more convinced now that eldar sounds always be able to make an assualt move whether charging or not.
This reflects their fire and fade abilities much better than extra rules that allow them to run suicidally close in order to hit and then sit there waiting to die.
It's was one of the best parts of the battlefleet gothic Eldar rules
Umm, Guardians cost more per squad (but not per model).
And the Aspects are in the same price range as Marines.
I happen to think Guardians, DAs, and Marines are all on the same level balance-wise, but you should really look up the numbers if you think Tacs cost more than Aspects (or Guardians on a per-squad basis).
There's a 3 pt difference between a guardian and a tac.. Let me repeat 3..
Guardian needs a good advance roll to even threaten the other..MArines can just stand still and pump out 2 shots a piece at 24" while the guardians are running at them just to have a chance to hurt them..
Marines gets an extra point of toughness and 2 points of armour save..
Marines gets an extra point of strength and extra attack
Bare bones 80pts of tacs destroys 80pts of guardians with the new rules.
The marines can get extra AP through doctrine for free..Not to mention all of the various rules combos like exploding 6's.. etc.
Its not even a contest. Its a massacre.
Hellebore wrote: I'm more convinced now that eldar sounds always be able to make an assualt move whether charging or not.
This reflects their fire and fade abilities much better than extra rules that allow them to run suicidally close in order to hit and then sit there waiting to die.
It's was one of the best parts of the battlefleet gothic Eldar rules
We sort of had that between battle focus and jetbikes assault moves. Everything except our vehicles could move behind a wall after taking their shots. That was very fluffy but also a huge pain for our opponents to play against. As long as you didn't roll poorly, you could pretty reliably reposition your entire gunline such that your opponent couldn't fire a single shot in retaliation.
I kind of wonder about changing Battle Focus to be a -1 to hit penalty to attacks targeting eldar units that advanced in their previous movement phase. Or maybe have it be a reactionary thing that you use when you're targeted by enemy shooting (like 7e jink). Basically, you'd be trading some of your own pointy-eared offense in exchange for more durability. It would benefit all eldar untis rather than just short-ranged shooty units and banshees, it would represent the acrobatic evasion of craftworlders with something other than a 2CP strat, and it would emphasize the craftworlder concern for their warriors' well-being when contrasted with the more offense-focused drukhari.
Argive wrote: Guardians are 8, storm guardians are 6(7 before CA).
Guardians minimum squad is 10 so its 80 points minimum. With platform you will always take that's at least 105 points..
And the only reason you'd generally take storm guardians is to fill the troop tax slot as they are minimum size 8 so 48 points sink.
Just make Guardians 7 points and they'd make slightly more sense. Storm Guardians just need to be removed entirely because the role they fill is stupid and the fluff is stupid.
Hellebore wrote: I'm more convinced now that eldar sounds always be able to make an assualt move whether charging or not.
This reflects their fire and fade abilities much better than extra rules that allow them to run suicidally close in order to hit and then sit there waiting to die.
It's was one of the best parts of the battlefleet gothic Eldar rules
In Epic they’re very good at activating twice in a row and that makes them very fleet compared to everything else, and move shoot move is - crude simulation of that for 28mm. I can’t believe any more they should have move shoot move in 40k though because the number of times you pick up and put down models is one of the biggest contributions to turn length and I don’t think the benefit outweighs the loss in that case.
Argive wrote: Guardians are 8, storm guardians are 6(7 before CA).
Guardians minimum squad is 10 so its 80 points minimum. With platform you will always take that's at least 105 points..
And the only reason you'd generally take storm guardians is to fill the troop tax slot as they are minimum size 8 so 48 points sink.
Just make Guardians 7 points and they'd make slightly more sense. Storm Guardians just need to be removed entirely because the role they fill is stupid and the fluff is stupid.
Meh. I like that storm guardians exist. In previous editions, being able to take a warlock "sergeant" with them meant they could either be mildly threatening to vehicles (something our other troops couldn't do) or else put down a bunch of flamer templates (flamer, flamer, and the destructor psychic power). Currently, fusion guns are meh because vehicles are intentionally more survivable against one or two guns, and flamers are weaker than in the past for various reasons. In an edition where meltas and flamers are good, storm guardians are potentially pretty good.
Fluff-wise, a squad with the tools to fill hallways with fire, blast through sealed doors and engage the enemy in melee doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Even a shuriken pistol, sort of the alien equivalent of a fully automatic pistol, kind of makes sense if you picture it being used in Zone Mortalis type situations. Storm Guardians get a lot of hate, but I wouldn't mind a new guardian kit with a sprue full of chain swords and special weapons.
That said, I still think both defenders and storm guardians would be helped a lot by lowering their minimum squad size to 5. If you take them without upgrades, you have cheap troops to fill out batallions. If you give them special weapons or heavy weapon platforms, you end up paying a reasonable amount for the firepower you get and can squeeze multiple stormie squads into a serpent.
Argive wrote: Guardians are 8, storm guardians are 6(7 before CA).
Guardians minimum squad is 10 so its 80 points minimum. With platform you will always take that's at least 105 points..
And the only reason you'd generally take storm guardians is to fill the troop tax slot as they are minimum size 8 so 48 points sink.
Just make Guardians 7 points and they'd make slightly more sense. Storm Guardians just need to be removed entirely because the role they fill is stupid and the fluff is stupid.
Meh. I like that storm guardians exist. In previous editions, being able to take a warlock "sergeant" with them meant they could either be mildly threatening to vehicles (something our other troops couldn't do) or else put down a bunch of flamer templates (flamer, flamer, and the destructor psychic power). Currently, fusion guns are meh because vehicles are intentionally more survivable against one or two guns, and flamers are weaker than in the past for various reasons. In an edition where meltas and flamers are good, storm guardians are potentially pretty good.
Fluff-wise, a squad with the tools to fill hallways with fire, blast through sealed doors and engage the enemy in melee doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Even a shuriken pistol, sort of the alien equivalent of a fully automatic pistol, kind of makes sense if you picture it being used in Zone Mortalis type situations. Storm Guardians get a lot of hate, but I wouldn't mind a new guardian kit with a sprue full of chain swords and special weapons.
That said, I still think both defenders and storm guardians would be helped a lot by lowering their minimum squad size to 5. If you take them without upgrades, you have cheap troops to fill out batallions. If you give them special weapons or heavy weapon platforms, you end up paying a reasonable amount for the firepower you get and can squeeze multiple stormie squads into a serpent.
Or drop the heavy platform requirement to eveyr 3 models. Could potentially get some nice little heavy platform overwtch teams in cover which would be fluffy..
I have nothing against storm guardians. I like them concept and normal guardians but they are just too darn expensive. (Along with everything else in our army) Fielding a dual battalion in term of HQ/Troop tax really stings.. The PLs are too expensive to be viable so you end up with bunch of farseers maybe 1 autarch and a warlock in every list. The new DA exarch powers are somewhat interesting as pumping out 4 -3 ap shots is nice. DOwnside is you loose the invuln which is what I really liked about taking small DA squads. If you get lucky you can tank a lot of shooting on the exarchs invuln. Now the other 4 dudes are the albeiative wounds for that 4x -3 platform lol. The new rules are really cool and don't feel cheesey. some drawbacks etc, Unlike marines where its all buffs and zero drawback.
Argive wrote: Guardians are 8, storm guardians are 6(7 before CA).
Guardians minimum squad is 10 so its 80 points minimum. With platform you will always take that's at least 105 points..
And the only reason you'd generally take storm guardians is to fill the troop tax slot as they are minimum size 8 so 48 points sink.
Just make Guardians 7 points and they'd make slightly more sense. Storm Guardians just need to be removed entirely because the role they fill is stupid and the fluff is stupid.
Meh. I like that storm guardians exist. In previous editions, being able to take a warlock "sergeant" with them meant they could either be mildly threatening to vehicles (something our other troops couldn't do) or else put down a bunch of flamer templates (flamer, flamer, and the destructor psychic power). Currently, fusion guns are meh because vehicles are intentionally more survivable against one or two guns, and flamers are weaker than in the past for various reasons. In an edition where meltas and flamers are good, storm guardians are potentially pretty good.
Fluff-wise, a squad with the tools to fill hallways with fire, blast through sealed doors and engage the enemy in melee doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Even a shuriken pistol, sort of the alien equivalent of a fully automatic pistol, kind of makes sense if you picture it being used in Zone Mortalis type situations. Storm Guardians get a lot of hate, but I wouldn't mind a new guardian kit with a sprue full of chain swords and special weapons.
That said, I still think both defenders and storm guardians would be helped a lot by lowering their minimum squad size to 5. If you take them without upgrades, you have cheap troops to fill out batallions. If you give them special weapons or heavy weapon platforms, you end up paying a reasonable amount for the firepower you get and can squeeze multiple stormie squads into a serpent.
Oh please, nobody was scared of their ability to tickle vehicles. They were passed over all the time for good reason! They don't fulfill a role that makes sense. S3 attacks trying to tackle a vehicle with maybe a couple of Melta Guns? How cheap can you make that to become viable when they're already likely as cheap as they can get?
I still can't believe people would defend the unit entry as though they would actually miss it!
Hellebore wrote: I think it's more that xenos armies have so little support, stripping units out is just a slap in the face, however they might suck.
IMO they need to redo guardians as a dual kit with corsairs, which could make them a triple kit and also make storm guardians.
But I would also make them more varied with lots of special weapons rather than just 2.
Makes them veteran guardians rather than just another type of guardian.
I would love something like corsair/Guardian kit.
I'd love to see a much more modular Guardian kit though. 5-20 (or 10-20 or 8-24 or whatever) bodies.
-Each guy can take Pistol+CCW, Catapult, or Lasblaster, or Long Rifle (at appropriate points)
-For each 5 (or 8 or 10) models, you may take either a Weapons Platform or up to 2 Specials
-May take Camo Cloaks
This gives you your Corsair squads, your Storm Guardians, your Guardians, and your Rangers. And allows a lot more customization/options.
Argive wrote: Guardians are 8, storm guardians are 6(7 before CA).
Guardians minimum squad is 10 so its 80 points minimum. With platform you will always take that's at least 105 points..
And the only reason you'd generally take storm guardians is to fill the troop tax slot as they are minimum size 8 so 48 points sink.
Just make Guardians 7 points and they'd make slightly more sense. Storm Guardians just need to be removed entirely because the role they fill is stupid and the fluff is stupid.
Meh. I like that storm guardians exist. In previous editions, being able to take a warlock "sergeant" with them meant they could either be mildly threatening to vehicles (something our other troops couldn't do) or else put down a bunch of flamer templates (flamer, flamer, and the destructor psychic power). Currently, fusion guns are meh because vehicles are intentionally more survivable against one or two guns, and flamers are weaker than in the past for various reasons. In an edition where meltas and flamers are good, storm guardians are potentially pretty good.
Fluff-wise, a squad with the tools to fill hallways with fire, blast through sealed doors and engage the enemy in melee doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Even a shuriken pistol, sort of the alien equivalent of a fully automatic pistol, kind of makes sense if you picture it being used in Zone Mortalis type situations. Storm Guardians get a lot of hate, but I wouldn't mind a new guardian kit with a sprue full of chain swords and special weapons.
That said, I still think both defenders and storm guardians would be helped a lot by lowering their minimum squad size to 5. If you take them without upgrades, you have cheap troops to fill out batallions. If you give them special weapons or heavy weapon platforms, you end up paying a reasonable amount for the firepower you get and can squeeze multiple stormie squads into a serpent.
Oh please, nobody was scared of their ability to tickle vehicles. They were passed over all the time for good reason! They don't fulfill a role that makes sense. S3 attacks trying to tackle a vehicle with maybe a couple of Melta Guns? How cheap can you make that to become viable when they're already likely as cheap as they can get?
I still can't believe people would defend the unit entry as though they would actually miss it!
So you're saying Tac Marines - and the rest of the Marine line - should have been removed from the Marine book because they weren't good and didn't fuflifll a role? And the Necron codex?
Hellebore wrote: I think it's more that xenos armies have so little support, stripping units out is just a slap in the face, however they might suck.
IMO they need to redo guardians as a dual kit with corsairs, which could make them a triple kit and also make storm guardians.
But I would also make them more varied with lots of special weapons rather than just 2.
Makes them veteran guardians rather than just another type of guardian.
I would love something like corsair/Guardian kit.
I'd love to see a much more modular Guardian kit though. 5-20 (or 10-20 or 8-24 or whatever) bodies.
-Each guy can take Pistol+CCW, Catapult, or Lasblaster, or Long Rifle (at appropriate points)
-For each 5 (or 8 or 10) models, you may take either a Weapons Platform or up to 2 Specials
-May take Camo Cloaks
This gives you your Corsair squads, your Storm Guardians, your Guardians, and your Rangers. And allows a lot more customization/options.
Argive wrote: Guardians are 8, storm guardians are 6(7 before CA).
Guardians minimum squad is 10 so its 80 points minimum. With platform you will always take that's at least 105 points..
And the only reason you'd generally take storm guardians is to fill the troop tax slot as they are minimum size 8 so 48 points sink.
Just make Guardians 7 points and they'd make slightly more sense. Storm Guardians just need to be removed entirely because the role they fill is stupid and the fluff is stupid.
Meh. I like that storm guardians exist. In previous editions, being able to take a warlock "sergeant" with them meant they could either be mildly threatening to vehicles (something our other troops couldn't do) or else put down a bunch of flamer templates (flamer, flamer, and the destructor psychic power). Currently, fusion guns are meh because vehicles are intentionally more survivable against one or two guns, and flamers are weaker than in the past for various reasons. In an edition where meltas and flamers are good, storm guardians are potentially pretty good.
Fluff-wise, a squad with the tools to fill hallways with fire, blast through sealed doors and engage the enemy in melee doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Even a shuriken pistol, sort of the alien equivalent of a fully automatic pistol, kind of makes sense if you picture it being used in Zone Mortalis type situations. Storm Guardians get a lot of hate, but I wouldn't mind a new guardian kit with a sprue full of chain swords and special weapons.
That said, I still think both defenders and storm guardians would be helped a lot by lowering their minimum squad size to 5. If you take them without upgrades, you have cheap troops to fill out batallions. If you give them special weapons or heavy weapon platforms, you end up paying a reasonable amount for the firepower you get and can squeeze multiple stormie squads into a serpent.
Oh please, nobody was scared of their ability to tickle vehicles. They were passed over all the time for good reason! They don't fulfill a role that makes sense. S3 attacks trying to tackle a vehicle with maybe a couple of Melta Guns? How cheap can you make that to become viable when they're already likely as cheap as they can get?
I still can't believe people would defend the unit entry as though they would actually miss it!
So you're saying Tac Marines - and the rest of the Marine line - should have been removed from the Marine book because they weren't good and didn't fuflifll a role? And the Necron codex?
That sounds like a remarkably bad idea.
I've already discussed that Tactical Marines need a total rework as much as some of you want to keep them at the crummy 1 Special and 1 Heavy. Also there would NEVER be a point to Storm Guardians existing. Imperial Guard can already do melee Infantry squads better than Storm Guardians with a very small amount of effort, and nobody uses them. Why would anyone load up on a troop choice with minimal special weapon count, a piddly amount of attacks, AND those attacks are S3 to boot.
Oh please, nobody was scared of their ability to tickle vehicles. They were passed over all the time for good reason! They don't fulfill a role that makes sense. S3 attacks trying to tackle a vehicle with maybe a couple of Melta Guns? How cheap can you make that to become viable when they're already likely as cheap as they can get?
I still can't believe people would defend the unit entry as though they would actually miss it!
They were often passed over because other units were cheaper or could fit in a falcon (back when those were considered durable). Lowering their squad size to 5 would help with both of those issues. At 5 bodies minimum, the squad overall gets cheaper without lowering the cost of individual models. You'd be able to fit most of a batallion's troops into a single wave serpent, and you'd be able to have 4 fusion guns hop out of said wave serpent.
Despite waving swords around, they're not a melee unit. They're "guardians with special weapons instead of heavy weapons." In previous editions, 3 anti tank shots (2 fusion and a singing spear) was enough to stun or kill a vehicle with a little luck. Even if you didn't finish the job, you were making it that much easier for another gun in your army to do so. And 2 flame templates plus a strength 5 flame template (old destructor) was nothing to sneeze at.
Even if they're not top tier, I'd totally field a small, cheap, CP-generating squad that can toss out a couple anti tank shots. It would give me a unit that, with a little luck, could sucker punch a much more valuable enemy unit. Especially now that we have access to salamander rerolls. I'd view that as a welcome addition to our lineup of troops that mostly only shoots strength 4 guns. It's just that they're awkward to put in a wave serpent at the moment. That, and maybe slightly too big an investment overall.
So historically, I've made use of them, and it would be extremely simple to make them much more useful at present by simply changing the squad size. I don't see any call to rip their page out of the codex and burn it. Sorry you're mad that a unit other people like isn't to your taste, I guess. Have you considered not buying and fielding them if you personally don't like them?
kind of makes me wish we had cheaper wraith guard and phoenix lords with natural invulnerable saves...
But instead we have amazing psychic powers that have to work in tandem or your whole list just dies.
Then we have avenger catapualts which honestly should have a natural -1 ap... but sadly our units are super squishy. You need large amounts of transports which sucks, because I hate using tanks, but its the only way to keep your army alive. That and our heavy walker just dies like a coward to most heavies and dies in droves versus knight titans.
My army has alot of aspect warriors but unforunately the aspect warriors are too costly... don't do enough for their points, or their uses are limited, namely Striking Scorpions, and even with the 'buffs' Howling banshees are still subpar they cost 13pts... 13pts 1pts more than a space marine and have a pistol and a power weapon.... they can't be overwatched but they will never reach an entrenched unit especially now with the fact that get no way to in any meaningful way kill space marines or MEQ's. Striking scorpions are okayish? But they have no ap on their chainswords which is kind of a bummer considering they used to have -1 ap on base in previous editions.
Oh please, nobody was scared of their ability to tickle vehicles. They were passed over all the time for good reason! They don't fulfill a role that makes sense. S3 attacks trying to tackle a vehicle with maybe a couple of Melta Guns? How cheap can you make that to become viable when they're already likely as cheap as they can get?
I still can't believe people would defend the unit entry as though they would actually miss it!
They were often passed over because other units were cheaper or could fit in a falcon (back when those were considered durable). Lowering their squad size to 5 would help with both of those issues. At 5 bodies minimum, the squad overall gets cheaper without lowering the cost of individual models. You'd be able to fit most of a batallion's troops into a single wave serpent, and you'd be able to have 4 fusion guns hop out of said wave serpent.
Despite waving swords around, they're not a melee unit. They're "guardians with special weapons instead of heavy weapons." In previous editions, 3 anti tank shots (2 fusion and a singing spear) was enough to stun or kill a vehicle with a little luck. Even if you didn't finish the job, you were making it that much easier for another gun in your army to do so. And 2 flame templates plus a strength 5 flame template (old destructor) was nothing to sneeze at.
Even if they're not top tier, I'd totally field a small, cheap, CP-generating squad that can toss out a couple anti tank shots. It would give me a unit that, with a little luck, could sucker punch a much more valuable enemy unit. Especially now that we have access to salamander rerolls. I'd view that as a welcome addition to our lineup of troops that mostly only shoots strength 4 guns. It's just that they're awkward to put in a wave serpent at the moment. That, and maybe slightly too big an investment overall.
So historically, I've made use of them, and it would be extremely simple to make them much more useful at present by simply changing the squad size. I don't see any call to rip their page out of the codex and burn it. Sorry you're mad that a unit other people like isn't to your taste, I guess. Have you considered not buying and fielding them if you personally don't like them?
See, your fix is nothing but a way to generate cheaper CP for the army, with you even admitting as much. If that doesn't show that there's no purpose to the unit, what will?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Doesn't removing Marines, Storm Guardians, and the whole Necron, AdMech, and GK books seem like hateful overkill, though?
I love you go for Strawmans.
I showed why the Storm Guardian entry is pointless and needs to go. You've done nothing to defend your position besides "muh options". Nobody was using them as an option and their fluff is garbage to boot!
So do something better to defend the unit. Please. Anything but the absolutely bad argument you just used.
Bharring wrote: Doesn't removing Marines, Storm Guardians, and the whole Necron, AdMech, and GK books seem like hateful overkill, though?
I love you go for Strawmans.
Your argument is that Storm Guardians had no purpose. And therefore should be removed. You agreed that Marines had no purpose.
I'm suggesting that, if the same standard would apply, the decision to remove Storm Guardians should also have decided to remove Marines.
That's not a strawman, that's demonstrating how your view of how things should work would be bad.
I showed why the Storm Guardian entry is pointless and needs to go.
You stated, but did not show. You suggested reasons why it might be pointless, based on current rules. You certainly didn't show that it would always be pointless. That was the point of the above: being pointless right now doesn't mean it should be removed from the game.
You've done nothing to defend your position besides "muh options".
Well, seeing as my entire point was predicated on *everyone else's* options, reducing it to "muh options" is more wrong than a blind monkey should have been, typing randomly.
I've pointed out that not having good rules at one point in time does not mean they cannot have a role ever. That's not nearly the same.
Nobody was using them as an option
Nobody you care about. That's not the same as nobody. The set of all people is a lot larger than "you".
and their fluff is garbage to boot!
That's certainly debatable. It's not like we're talking "More Marine-y Marines", or "Khorne Zerkers so roided out on blood that they can't do anything but scream and kill - who sneak up on unsuspecting enemies quietly and deliberately!" or "This brilliant evil robot alien who's super advanced with tech the other races could only dream of thinks he's a living, breathing person".
So do something better to defend the unit. Please. Anything but the absolutely bad argument you just used.
I have a hard time believing "CWE never, ever, under any circumstances, deploys specialists".
However, "I think that fluff makes sense, so leave it be" isn't the counter to your "I think it's stupid, and therefore nobody should be allowed to take it". The proper counter to that term is "You're not everybody. Stop demanding we live by your rules. Stop pretending we are not allowed to think/care differently than you. Stop trying to realign everything in our orbit to fit your whims."
The reason it seems like a straw man is that you're not grasping the concept that you're not the end-all be-all of fact and opinion. Your beliefs aren't The Sacred Word. We aren't evil subhuman heathens for disagreeing with you.
Bharring wrote: Doesn't removing Marines, Storm Guardians, and the whole Necron, AdMech, and GK books seem like hateful overkill, though?
I love you go for Strawmans.
Your argument is that Storm Guardians had no purpose. And therefore should be removed. You agreed that Marines had no purpose.
I'm suggesting that, if the same standard would apply, the decision to remove Storm Guardians should also have decided to remove Marines.
That's not a strawman, that's demonstrating how your view of how things should work would be bad.
I showed why the Storm Guardian entry is pointless and needs to go.
You stated, but did not show. You suggested reasons why it might be pointless, based on current rules. You certainly didn't show that it would always be pointless. That was the point of the above: being pointless right now doesn't mean it should be removed from the game.
You've done nothing to defend your position besides "muh options".
Well, seeing as my entire point was predicated on *everyone else's* options, reducing it to "muh options" is more wrong than a blind monkey should have been, typing randomly.
I've pointed out that not having good rules at one point in time does not mean they cannot have a role ever. That's not nearly the same.
Nobody was using them as an option
Nobody you care about. That's not the same as nobody. The set of all people is a lot larger than "you".
and their fluff is garbage to boot!
That's certainly debatable. It's not like we're talking "More Marine-y Marines", or "Khorne Zerkers so roided out on blood that they can't do anything but scream and kill - who sneak up on unsuspecting enemies quietly and deliberately!" or "This brilliant evil robot alien who's super advanced with tech the other races could only dream of thinks he's a living, breathing person".
So do something better to defend the unit. Please. Anything but the absolutely bad argument you just used.
I have a hard time believing "CWE never, ever, under any circumstances, deploys specialists".
However, "I think that fluff makes sense, so leave it be" isn't the counter to your "I think it's stupid, and therefore nobody should be allowed to take it". The proper counter to that term is "You're not everybody. Stop demanding we live by your rules. Stop pretending we are not allowed to think/care differently than you. Stop trying to realign everything in our orbit to fit your whims."
The reason it seems like a straw man is that you're not grasping the concept that you're not the end-all be-all of fact and opinion. Your beliefs aren't The Sacred Word. We aren't evil subhuman heathens for disagreeing with you.
1. Storm Guardians serve no purpose, they don't have a role that is necessary for the army, and the fluff is stupid (like you can really debate otherwise). That's actually three points for them to be deleted. Remember, somebody had a suggestion to just make them cheaper for better CP generation and admitted as much. At least Tactical Marines can just spam Bolt shots as Ultramarines.
2. Yes I did state how they were pointless. They're an expensive model with poor as hell melee stats to the point Fire Warriors wouldn't be afraid of them, bad special weapon saturation, and are slow. They're useless, period, and you have yet to show there's a point to the unit existing. Next.
3. Whataboutisms aren't the same as defending their fluff. For Berserker Marines being quiet and everything until close to the enemy, Carcharodons Chapter does that. So there you go.
Dying race giving Catapults is already pushing it for regular Guardians, but, as unrealistic as 40k is supposed to be, Storm Guardians REALLY don't make sense at all.
4. Defending pointless options and units just because you can really does mean you're on the lower end of being able to balance and discuss balance, sorry. I don't think we should consider the opinion of someone that thinks Storm Guardians or Master of Executioners have a purpose to be filled, or think we NEED the three separate Terminator entries for the different armors for the sake of creating unit entries because "muh options".
Bharring wrote: Doesn't removing Marines, Storm Guardians, and the whole Necron, AdMech, and GK books seem like hateful overkill, though?
I love you go for Strawmans.
Your argument is that Storm Guardians had no purpose. And therefore should be removed. You agreed that Marines had no purpose.
I'm suggesting that, if the same standard would apply, the decision to remove Storm Guardians should also have decided to remove Marines.
That's not a strawman, that's demonstrating how your view of how things should work would be bad.
I showed why the Storm Guardian entry is pointless and needs to go.
You stated, but did not show. You suggested reasons why it might be pointless, based on current rules. You certainly didn't show that it would always be pointless. That was the point of the above: being pointless right now doesn't mean it should be removed from the game.
You've done nothing to defend your position besides "muh options".
Well, seeing as my entire point was predicated on *everyone else's* options, reducing it to "muh options" is more wrong than a blind monkey should have been, typing randomly.
I've pointed out that not having good rules at one point in time does not mean they cannot have a role ever. That's not nearly the same.
Nobody was using them as an option
Nobody you care about. That's not the same as nobody. The set of all people is a lot larger than "you".
and their fluff is garbage to boot!
That's certainly debatable. It's not like we're talking "More Marine-y Marines", or "Khorne Zerkers so roided out on blood that they can't do anything but scream and kill - who sneak up on unsuspecting enemies quietly and deliberately!" or "This brilliant evil robot alien who's super advanced with tech the other races could only dream of thinks he's a living, breathing person".
So do something better to defend the unit. Please. Anything but the absolutely bad argument you just used.
I have a hard time believing "CWE never, ever, under any circumstances, deploys specialists".
However, "I think that fluff makes sense, so leave it be" isn't the counter to your "I think it's stupid, and therefore nobody should be allowed to take it". The proper counter to that term is "You're not everybody. Stop demanding we live by your rules. Stop pretending we are not allowed to think/care differently than you. Stop trying to realign everything in our orbit to fit your whims."
The reason it seems like a straw man is that you're not grasping the concept that you're not the end-all be-all of fact and opinion. Your beliefs aren't The Sacred Word. We aren't evil subhuman heathens for disagreeing with you.
1. Storm Guardians serve no purpose, they don't have a role that is necessary for the army, and the fluff is stupid (like you can really debate otherwise). That's actually three points for them to be deleted.
It's actually only one in two parts - with #1 and #3 being redundant with #2.
Remember, somebody had a suggestion to just make them cheaper for better CP generation and admitted as much.
That doesn't really say much either way.
At least Tactical Marines can just spam Bolt shots as Ultramarines.
Maybe they do that now. But there have been points in time they didn't even do that.
2. [More redundancy]
3. Whataboutisms aren't the same as defending their fluff. For Berserker Marines being quiet and everything until close to the enemy, Carcharodons Chapter does that. So there you go.
Your argument is "If $thing has no [meta-relevant purpose at some point in time balance-wise] then [they should be removed]" is your claim, with $thing being Storm Guardians. Evaluating the argument where $thing is Space Marines or the entire Necron book isn't whataboutism - it's proof by contradiction. Not evidence. Not refutation. Proof that the argument is stupid. Whataboutism is "Something else is just as bad" - this proof isn't making a relative value judgment, it's demonstrating the flaw in the logic. Read up more on the difference between such proofs and whataboutisms, because it's more than just a buzz word for trumping arguments.
Dying race giving Catapults is already pushing it for regular Guardians, but, as unrealistic as 40k is supposed to be, Storm Guardians REALLY don't make sense at all.
You really don't get the whole "Desperate, we're boned, last stand" concept, do you?
4. Defending pointless options and units just because you can really does mean you're on the lower end of being able to balance and discuss balance, sorry. I don't think we should consider the opinion of someone that thinks Storm Guardians or Master of Executioners have a purpose to be filled, or think we NEED the three separate Terminator entries for the different armors for the sake of creating unit entries because "muh options".
In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and therefore should be ignored? Once again, any deviance from your Holy Truth marks the poster as a nonperson?
They were often passed over because other units were cheaper or could fit in a falcon (back when those were considered durable). Lowering their squad size to 5 would help with both of those issues. At 5 bodies minimum, the squad overall gets cheaper without lowering the cost of individual models. You'd be able to fit most of a batallion's troops into a single wave serpent, and you'd be able to have 4 fusion guns hop out of said wave serpent.
Despite waving swords around, they're not a melee unit. They're "guardians with special weapons instead of heavy weapons." In previous editions, 3 anti tank shots (2 fusion and a singing spear) was enough to stun or kill a vehicle with a little luck. Even if you didn't finish the job, you were making it that much easier for another gun in your army to do so. And 2 flame templates plus a strength 5 flame template (old destructor) was nothing to sneeze at.
Even if they're not top tier, I'd totally field a small, cheap, CP-generating squad that can toss out a couple anti tank shots. It would give me a unit that, with a little luck, could sucker punch a much more valuable enemy unit. Especially now that we have access to salamander rerolls. I'd view that as a welcome addition to our lineup of troops that mostly only shoots strength 4 guns. It's just that they're awkward to put in a wave serpent at the moment. That, and maybe slightly too big an investment overall.
So historically, I've made use of them, and it would be extremely simple to make them much more useful at present by simply changing the squad size. I don't see any call to rip their page out of the codex and burn it. Sorry you're mad that a unit other people like isn't to your taste, I guess. Have you considered not buying and fielding them if you personally don't like them?
See, your fix is nothing but a way to generate cheaper CP for the army, with you even admitting as much. If that doesn't show that there's no purpose to the unit, what will?
Um. I feel like you maybe didn't read the several paragraphs of text in that post you quoted in which I talk about how I like the idea of a cheap unit that can fling out a couple of anti-tank shots. A fusion gun toting troop choice is interestingly distinctive from the other troop choices. If we could make the squad smaller to fit in a wave serpent alongside another 5 man squad, they'd be less of an overall investment (making their anti tank shots more cost efficient), and they'd be easier to justify taking because you could still fit a second unit in one of our expensive serpents.
Being able to generate CP a bit more cheaply is just one of several benefits I see to lowering their minimum squad size.
I showed why the Storm Guardian entry is pointless and needs to go.
Did you? As I understand it, your argument for why they should be removed as an option boils down to:
1. They weren't good in the past.
2. They aren't competitive in the current meta.
3. You feel that they don't occupy a niche that would be worthwhile in the future.
To which I reply:
1. They've been good enough for me to use them in the past. They were never MVPs, but triple anti-tank shot or triple flamer configurations of them were interesting and saw play.
2. If not being optimal in the current meta is a reason to squat a unit, then shouldn't that same logic apply to every suboptimal unit in the game? And if not, why not? This is the point Bharrin is making.
3. "Cheap troop squad with anti tank guns" is a niche they're currently filling. They're not as good at tank busting as fire dragons, but they're not as expensive as fire dragons either. And in a game where being a troop has benefits over being a non-troop, the fact that they can help fill out a batallion is a legitimate merit. I'd like to see their flamer build become better again (it's currently doing the same job as avengers and defenders but worse), but the rules for flamers could very well change at some point.
You seem to be getting very upset over the idea that other people can enjoy using a unit that isn't optimal.
EDIT:
Oh, and you don't like their fluff. Which... too bad for you I guess? If someone else thinks space elf ninja chainsword millitia are cool, let them. And also I think YOUR favorite unit has dumb fluff and should be removed, so there! Nyeh!
1) Remove Storm Guardians (hear me out...)
2) Combine everything into a simple "Guardian" squad, minimum size of 6-7 models if you want.
3) This Guardian squad can be armed with any of the available options in any combination, with or without platforms (you can stick in some special weapon stipulations per normal...or maybe don't? Are Guardians suddenly worthwhile if you can run 6-7 flamers or meltas?). So your Guardian squad can be dirt cheap...or can be run for a platform...or can have a sneaky melta if you want a little sting in the tail, or can have some swords/pistols if you're running a Craftworld which benefits from close combat.
4) Reduce all costs to 6 PPM.
5) Reduce WS/BS to 4+...mainly because it makes zero fething sense to have 3+ Guardians. Then bring back the old Black Guardians via Stratagem (1 CP per squad, bla bla bla).
There is no reasonable excuse for Guardians to more or less be better than Dire Avengers. That's garbage and a stupid gak rule change that flies in the face of the fluff.
PS: The points reduction is also assuming they keep their awful 12" shuriken catapults. Hell, bring back lasguns as a damn option, please. Give my weak and timid Guardians something that doesn't involve being in charge range of every unit in the game.
Look.. I have 2 upgrade sprues sitting on the shelve waiting for their build into two Storm guardian squads. Can We not advocate them being deleted before I get around to building & painting them?
Elbows wrote: Just to add my incredibly unpopular opinion:
1) Remove Storm Guardians (hear me out...) 2) Combine everything into a simple "Guardian" squad, minimum size of 6-7 models if you want. 3) This Guardian squad can be armed with any of the available options in any combination, with or without platforms (you can stick in some special weapon stipulations per normal...or maybe don't? Are Guardians suddenly worthwhile if you can run 6-7 flamers or meltas?). So your Guardian squad can be dirt cheap...or can be run for a platform...or can have a sneaky melta if you want a little sting in the tail, or can have some swords/pistols if you're running a Craftworld which benefits from close combat. 4) Reduce all costs to 6 PPM. 5) Reduce WS/BS to 4+...mainly because it makes zero fething sense to have 3+ Guardians. Then bring back the old Black Guardians via Stratagem (1 CP per squad, bla bla bla).
There is no reasonable excuse for Guardians to more or less be better than Dire Avengers. That's garbage and a stupid gak rule change that flies in the face of the fluff.
PS: The points reduction is also assuming they keep their awful 12" shuriken catapults. Hell, bring back lasguns as a damn option, please. Give my weak and timid Guardians something that doesn't involve being in charge range of every unit in the game.
Yeah i can agree with that.
Guardians should not be as skilled as aspect warriors
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: Look.. I have 2 upgrade sprues sitting on the shelve waiting for their build into two Storm guardian squads. Can We not advocate them being deleted before I get around to building & painting them?
honestly i rather them be a squad upgrade or storm guardians to be more useful. Storm Guardians would be a great corsair unit. But unforunately we do not have a corsair codex, and if anything storm guardians are only for uthwe anyway....
Instead of getting rid of them give them a points cost reduction and make all aspect warriors have a +3 armor save or a aspect of speed which gives them a +6 ignore wound ability. Which would be explained as a 'supernatural skill' Honestly would make all aspect warriors a bit better with out increase their cost.
Elbows wrote: Just to add my incredibly unpopular opinion:
1) Remove Storm Guardians (hear me out...)
2) Combine everything into a simple "Guardian" squad, minimum size of 6-7 models if you want.
3) This Guardian squad can be armed with any of the available options in any combination, with or without platforms (you can stick in some special weapon stipulations per normal...or maybe don't? Are Guardians suddenly worthwhile if you can run 6-7 flamers or meltas?). So your Guardian squad can be dirt cheap...or can be run for a platform...or can have a sneaky melta if you want a little sting in the tail, or can have some swords/pistols if you're running a Craftworld which benefits from close combat.
4) Reduce all costs to 6 PPM.
5) Reduce WS/BS to 4+...mainly because it makes zero fething sense to have 3+ Guardians. Then bring back the old Black Guardians via Stratagem (1 CP per squad, bla bla bla).
There is no reasonable excuse for Guardians to more or less be better than Dire Avengers. That's garbage and a stupid gak rule change that flies in the face of the fluff.
PS: The points reduction is also assuming they keep their awful 12" shuriken catapults. Hell, bring back lasguns as a damn option, please. Give my weak and timid Guardians something that doesn't involve being in charge range of every unit in the game.
Not necessarily against that. I feel like you'd probably want to limit the number of special weapons somewhat (a squad full of fusion guns should really be the purview of fire dragons), but the general idea is fine. It basically lets you take any guardian weapons you want on their own merit, and it makes the squad small enough to have more flexibility with transports. Any reason not to make the minimum squad size 5? IIRC, that would make a minimum guardian squad the same cost as a minimum kabalite warrior squad, and they'd be a bit worse in comparison with BS4+.
I do like the idea of BS4+ guardians; it was a good way of distinguishing them from aspect warriors once upon a time. Though to play devil's advocate, the new exarch powers seem like they'll make dire avengers pretty distinct from guardians as-is.Guaranteed AP3 is snazzy.
Elbows wrote: Just to add my incredibly unpopular opinion:
1) Remove Storm Guardians (hear me out...)
2) Combine everything into a simple "Guardian" squad, minimum size of 6-7 models if you want.
3) This Guardian squad can be armed with any of the available options in any combination, with or without platforms (you can stick in some special weapon stipulations per normal...or maybe don't? Are Guardians suddenly worthwhile if you can run 6-7 flamers or meltas?). So your Guardian squad can be dirt cheap...or can be run for a platform...or can have a sneaky melta if you want a little sting in the tail, or can have some swords/pistols if you're running a Craftworld which benefits from close combat.
4) Reduce all costs to 6 PPM.
5) Reduce WS/BS to 4+...mainly because it makes zero fething sense to have 3+ Guardians. Then bring back the old Black Guardians via Stratagem (1 CP per squad, bla bla bla).
There is no reasonable excuse for Guardians to more or less be better than Dire Avengers. That's garbage and a stupid gak rule change that flies in the face of the fluff.
PS: The points reduction is also assuming they keep their awful 12" shuriken catapults. Hell, bring back lasguns as a damn option, please. Give my weak and timid Guardians something that doesn't involve being in charge range of every unit in the game.
99% agree.
In a perfect world, Shuriken Catapaults may be +1ppm above sword/pistol. But combine them and give them options is a dream of mine.
Extra bonus points if you mix Rangers into it too (camo cloak and longrifle options), but now I'm just wishlisting.
Additional Guuardian wishlisting:
-LasBlasters, but at A2 (and possibly +1ppm or something). Ideally, Swooping Hawks have a rule making their LasBlasters better
-Striking Scorpions get Chainswords, plus a rule that gives them +1S while wielding chainswords
This makes Guardians more the "Basic troop" like Guardsmen, Marines, Kabs, FireWarriors, and more. And it doesn't harm CWE identity at all. If you really love the "Shotgunning Guardians" mode, you can points it appropriately to make that the ideal.
Also, further wishlisting, you could change the Black Guardian stratagem to +1WS/BS to a Guardian unit in the same vein as certain Vets and Chapter Masters. That'd be much more fitting.
And then, to go totally off the rails, I miss in-squad Warlocks. I know GW is moving away from mixed squads, but CWE already have them with Exarchs. If we got that back, Guardian specialist squads would have more identity. As it is, it's rather risky, as a 3-man Windrider or 8-man Storm Guardian squad has to be positioned *very carefully* when in the middle of the opponent to protect their Warlock.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, bonus points on the shock-opener, which served to both shock people into the conversation, and attempt to reconcile two vitrolic sides of a stupid argument.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, back to "reality" - these are Guardian squads. Even their Specialist squads aren't Aspects. Guardian specialist squads are more like IG/Marines/Kabs/etc; they'd have a couple specialists amongs squaddies.
I'd be fine with 2 per 8 bodies, although if the min squad size changes, it should be based on that. I like the idea of 6-mans with 2 Specials - it's enough saturation to show specialists and be an interesting builds, but not enough saturation to really be a "melta squad" like SM Vets or Fire Dragons. Exactly where Guardians should be.
I'd also combine Platforms into the same conversation. So "For every [6|8|10] Guardians in the squad, you may take up to one Heavy Weapons Platforms or two Special Weapons". Also, reduced min squad size would allow higher saturation of weapons platforms. This could make them more interesting - as 2 Heavy Weapons platforms in a 12- or -16-man Guardian squad would be cool. Might need to drop it's survivability (W1 or a 4+) so they don't make the squad too tanky.
So here's a rough ideal dataslate:
Stats: WS/BS 4+, 6ppm, 6-24, otherwise as-is
Platform stats: Sv 4+ W2
Wargear: Light Armor, Sword & Pistol, Plasma Grenade
Options:
Each Guardian may swap their Sword & Pistol for:
-Shuriken Catapault (+1ppm)
-LasBlaster (+2ppm)
-Chainsword & Pistol
For every 3 models, one Guardian may exchange their Sword & Pistol for:
-Flamer
-MeltaGun
Alternately, for every 6 mondels, you may add one Weapons Platform to this unit. T
You may add a single Warlock to this unit. Use the Warlock datasheet, but the model is a member of the Guardian unit, and loses the [Character] keyword.
Works for me. Is it dangerous to give a warlock (and his snazzy Runes of Battle) that many ablative wounds? Probably not, right? Losing the Character keyword means that you can wipe him out by targeting his unit rather than having to kill the ablative wounds in front of him.
.
