Between the rumor engine pics and the lack of attention from today's points adjustments, I find myself cautiously hoping that craftworlders might be in for a complete overhaul next year. Which got me thinking: how should a craftworld army actually behave on the table?
For years, I've heard people say that they should be glass cannons, but that feels a bit weird for a technologically advanced species that puts a lot of value on the lives of their remaining population. Plus, other space elves are already doing the glass cannon thing, and making them all compete for that same role means that you're likely to make at least one faction basically worse at the job than the others. Some people say they're meant to be a mobile, shooty army, but that's theoretically the tau niche. When I first started playing, they were an elite force equipped with more-powerful-than-normal wargear that made them specialists with an edge over their counterparts... But primaris marines are kind of filling that niche now, and it feels inappropriate to one-up marines at the "individually powerful" game by making eldar tech absurdly strong.
So how, in the abstract, should a craftworld army behave? How should their future playstyle be described?
Personally, I'd be inclined to make them a fast, tanky army that gets defensive bonuses when they move quickly. Aspect warriors should probably have comparable offensive output to primaris marines, but less durability once they stop moving and start shooting/stabbing.
While no expert on the Craftworld Eldar, I'd sum up their play style with one word: Shenanigans.
The Craftworlders are all about confounding their enemy. Be it weapons far too effective for their appearance, the knowledge to be where they need to be when they need to be, and their ability to avoid what certainly should have been a fatal blow. It's all shenanigans.
Craftworlders used to be about synergy and setting up to make efficient use of your buffs, but that was before the whole game turned into that. Foresight, but the "foresight" dice-fixing mechanic got used for Tzeentch, and then for Sisters, and I don't think they'll want to use it on another book. Speed, but speed is sort of irrelevant on the shrunken table, plus they were never faster than Harlequins/DE. Specialized units, but they've pivoted the game into making all things more generalist, so that's gone.
8e/9e sort of shut down all the things Craftworlders are supposed to do as mechanics, yeah.
AnomanderRake wrote: Craftworlders used to be about synergy and setting up to make efficient use of your buffs, but that was before the whole game turned into that. Foresight, but the "foresight" dice-fixing mechanic got used for Tzeentch, and then for Sisters, and I don't think they'll want to use it on another book. Speed, but speed is sort of irrelevant on the shrunken table, plus they were never faster than Harlequins/DE. Specialized units, but they've pivoted the game into making all things more generalist, so that's gone.
8e/9e sort of shut down all the things Craftworlders are supposed to do as mechanics, yeah.
Yeah. That's sort of been my frustration with them of late. I don't want them to get a raw power boost the way drukhari did, but the current game doesn't seem to really support the things they're meant to be good at. Thus why my mind kind of goes to emphasizing speed-as-defense and making them a little tanky. They'd basically be durable as they rush onto objectives and killy once they got there, but bad at being both at the same time.
What I really want them to do is kite/whittle the enemy down with guerilla warfare and then collapse in for a finishing blow, but games are too short for that to really be viable. Especially with how primary objectives work.
It is indeed going to be very interesting as so many units in the codex fail miserably ay what they do. aspect warriors and guardians are just swept off the table with the current amount of firepower. What kind of defensive buffs will GW add to improve the basic Eldar resilience on the table? I guess the reliance on wave serpents/falcons could still be a thing and that the occupants just get buffed offesnively so that they at least kill what they target, but don't last long after.
I really don't know how they're going to do it, but if we're seeing new plastic scorpions, warp spiders etc, they better have a plan in place.
1) fast, versatile infantry that can either be durable, or deadly, but not both (the guardian core of the army as well as IMO the vehicles)
2) hyper-hyper-specialized elite infantry that SHRED one unit type and are purposefully made ineffective against other unit types (Aspects)
3) extremely durable but slow and reliant on support heavy infantry/walkers (the wraiths).
Those are the three aspects of the eldar design ethos I think they have to go for.
Lets say for example you were trying to design aspects: Their statlines should choose one target archetype that they excel at bringing down, and purposefully manipulate their statline to make them ineffective at targeting things outside that realm.
Lets look for example at Warp Spiders. Lets say you want warp spiders to be just THE BEST at countering slow, tough, melee-oriented infantry or monstrous targets.
Strength 7, Ap-, Dd3 with a special ability that subtracts -2" from movement and halves the results of charge rolls if all models in the unit target the same enemy unit and cause at least 1 unsaved wound would allow them to entangle and impede lumbering melee enemies, but the strength and low AP value would mean turning them against MEQs or VEQs would be less efficient, while having the move reduction be flat -2 would mean a fast opponent like a biker squad could still just move directly up to them and have a decent chance of charging them.
Every aspect type should have a designated "prey" type unit in mind, as well as an achilles heel.
Dire Avengers:
Prey: elite infantry at close range that they can ambush and blow away with shuriken weaponry
Achilles Heel: Relatively expensive unit with little melee capability and no ability to harm Vehicle equivalent
Howling Banshees
Prey: Disabling and de-powering powerful enemy melee units or ranged units that rely on Overwatch to defend themselves
Heel: Not enough raw power to be efficient at just flinging at any enemy unit - actually probably should struggle fighting regular gun-toting troops units due to low volume of attacks themselves
Shining Spears
Prey: Long ranged enemy elite infantry and heroes where they can jump over their protections and cut them down with their lances
Heel: Low strength should make it so they cannot harm vehicles or other T7+ targets effectively and low volume of attacks should make low-value 1W infantry not worth their time
Hawks
Prey: light 1W infantry, should have special tricks to disable/debuff large hordes even when they cant kill them
Heel: Low Ap and low S to make other targets not worthwhile
Reapers
Prey: Fast targets, light vehicles, bikers etc
Heel: Should not be able to effectively harm medium or larger vehicles.
Design ideas: S6, ignoring hit modifiers, and with an ability to force rerolls of invulnerable saves, but with lower ROF than currently to make it so theyre less effective just pounding elite infantry
Crimson Hunters
Prey: if theyre going to be an aspect type, specialize them against Fly type enemies and Aircraft both offensively and defensively, similar to what they did with the Heldrake
Heel: Should NOT be as effective against ground vehicles as the Wraithfighter is
Fire Dragons
Prey: vehicles, monsters, stuff with lots of wounds
Heel: low ROF should make them ineffective against elite infantry. This one is the most obvious and straightforward
Scorpions
Prey: Light, low quality infantry and enemy units trying to secure objectives. Scopions should be creeping through enemy backlines, VERY difficult to target while they chop up the kind of light units that cower out of LOS raising banners doing actions and holding objectives
Heel: in a straight up fight against a melee-capable enemy scorpions should lose due to low S and low AP.
I think the fundamental idea of the eldar army should be "right tool, right place." Which is to say that most units should have a highly specialized role to play and serve as a "hard counter" to enemies within that role, but should then struggle to perform outside of that role.
How you actually achieve that I'm not terribly sure.
Eldar lore also always emphasizes their strategic insight, foresight, and flexibility. I think that if the individual models are stronger per se, they can make up for it here. Eldar, more than anyone else, should have rules that give then advantages or the initiative during deployment, setup, etc.
Heck, what if Eldar aspect units came in a fixed cost, and before deployment you would actually choose what specific aspect warriors you brought the to the table. Something that let you tailor your force on-the-fly to your opponent's list and the objective. This way, even if your forces were "weaker", at least you'd be able to bring the right specialists to the table each game.
And of course, Eldar should dominant the psychic phase.
I think the fundamental idea of the eldar army should be "right tool, right place." Which is to say that most units should have a highly specialized role to play and serve as a "hard counter" to enemies within that role, but should then struggle to perform outside of that role.
How you actually achieve that I'm not terribly sure.
Eldar lore also always emphasizes their strategic insight, foresight, and flexibility. I think that if the individual models are stronger per se, they can make up for it here. Eldar, more than anyone else, should have rules that give then advantages or the initiative during deployment, setup, etc.
Heck, what if Eldar aspect units came in a fixed cost, and before deployment you would actually choose what specific aspect warriors you brought the to the table. Something that let you tailor your force on-the-fly to your opponent's list and the objective. This way, even if your forces were "weaker", at least you'd be able to bring the right specialists to the table each game.
And of course, Eldar should dominant the psychic phase.
Exalted, love the idea of fixed cost aspect warriors, treating it similarly to the assassin stratagem for Imperial armies, but without the CP cost, as it would be their special ability.
On paper yes - the old idea was that units should be highly specialised. So you get a big advantage if they go into the right stuff, but a big disadvantage versus the wrong stuff. While ye olde Tactical squad with flamer and missile launcher could have a go at anything.
But this was rubbish then - and it would be even more rubbish now. It might have made sense if "putting units into the right thing" was hard - and therefore indicative of skill. But in practice its easy (or the unit is generally bad), so you just get all armies deleting each other. If say Fire Dragons, Striking Scorpions etc are only worth taking versus 3 units in the game and otherwise rubbish, you just don't play them. If say Shining Spears end up good versus most things, you do.
Ruthlessly the problem is that, possibly as a result of having been top army for so much of the game's existence, most armies have enjoyed "Eldarification".
I.e. - Eldar should be fast.
Modern 40k: All armies are fast.
Eldar should lean more into damage than resilience.
Modern 40k: Almost all armies barring DG and DA Terminators lean into damage rather than resilience (and those 2 can still put out a punch with certain combos).
Eldar should have psychic powers.
Modern 40k: Most factions have psychic powers, okay some of them won't usually bother which is a points thing.
Etc Etc.
Boringly ofcourse this leads to a sort of generification if applied the otherway. I.E. you just turn them into Marines.
A big problem for CWE is they’re the army with the least change since Rogue Trader.
In those days, armies were pretty small, perhaps a couple of dozen models, certainly well under 100.
In that, well, meta I suppose, you could afford to heavily specialise. Not only were there rather limited options for building your army, the pool of units was quite small. So a CWE force was less likely to end up fighting something it didn’t have some kind of specialist unit to counter with.
Of course, the game has grown and expanded. Lots and lots of units, whole new armies, and a greater availability of tanks and flyers. CWE have to my mind never quite kept up with those changes.
In particular, the Aspects are just nowhere near what they once were in terms of being a scary prospect. In 2nd Ed, Howling Banshees and Warp Spiders in particular were horrific to fight. I won’t go into the exact mechanics, but suffice to say both absolutely excelled in their specialist sphere. If Banshees got into combat, they’d have to fail pretty hard not to simply delete the victim of their attentions, and Warp Spiders would regularly turn their targets to soup, before running off like the cowards they are.
This I feel is best reflected that whilst CWE have usually been a force to be reckoned with into the modern day, it’s often been due to beardy spam lists, rather than the whole of the thing being viable. Please note I am not having a go at anyone who fields or fielded such armies.
There are a few things they could do with recovering rules wise.
First, make Aspects utterly deadly again. If I as your opponent fail to deal with them (such as shooting Banshees to death) then they should spank me like a red headed stepchild.
Second, greater interaction with Psychic Powers. Allowing Guardian Squads to take a Warlock as a unit leader is a decent start there.
Third? Bring Back Pop Up Attacks. These were ace. Basically you parked your Grav tank behind some terrain, and in your turn it could levitate to take its shot, before returning to safety. It could be frustrating for an opponent, but as with many of their former strengths, it required me as the opponent to be more aggressive and try to control and dictate the flow of the battle.
Make them a frustrating foe. Make them an encounter where the opponent must seize the initiative or be run rings around. Keep them relatively fragile, so when we can land a blow it feels satisfying. But man the opponent should need to really sing for their supper when facing a skilled CWE player.
A big problem for CWE is they’re the army with the least change since Rogue Trader.
In those days, armies were pretty small, perhaps a couple of dozen models, certainly well under 100.
In that, well, meta I suppose, you could afford to heavily specialise. Not only were there rather limited options for building your army, the pool of units was quite small. So a CWE force was less likely to end up fighting something it didn’t have some kind of specialist unit to counter with.
Of course, the game has grown and expanded. Lots and lots of units, whole new armies, and a greater availability of tanks and flyers. CWE have to my mind never quite kept up with those changes.
In particular, the Aspects are just nowhere near what they once were in terms of being a scary prospect. In 2nd Ed, Howling Banshees and Warp Spiders in particular were horrific to fight. I won’t go into the exact mechanics, but suffice to say both absolutely excelled in their specialist sphere. If Banshees got into combat, they’d have to fail pretty hard not to simply delete the victim of their attentions, and Warp Spiders would regularly turn their targets to soup, before running off like the cowards they are.
This I feel is best reflected that whilst CWE have usually been a force to be reckoned with into the modern day, it’s often been due to beardy spam lists, rather than the whole of the thing being viable. Please note I am not having a go at anyone who fields or fielded such armies.
There are a few things they could do with recovering rules wise.
First, make Aspects utterly deadly again. If I as your opponent fail to deal with them (such as shooting Banshees to death) then they should spank me like a red headed stepchild.
Second, greater interaction with Psychic Powers. Allowing Guardian Squads to take a Warlock as a unit leader is a decent start there.
Third? Bring Back Pop Up Attacks. These were ace. Basically you parked your Grav tank behind some terrain, and in your turn it could levitate to take its shot, before returning to safety. It could be frustrating for an opponent, but as with many of their former strengths, it required me as the opponent to be more aggressive and try to control and dictate the flow of the battle.
Make them a frustrating foe. Make them an encounter where the opponent must seize the initiative or be run rings around. Keep them relatively fragile, so when we can land a blow it feels satisfying. But man the opponent should need to really sing for their supper when facing a skilled CWE player.
Exalted, but especially this:
"First, make Aspects utterly deadly again."
In particular, if a CC Aspect makes it into contact with Marines, the Marines should get trounced.
De-wuss the Avatar. Now. Right now this very instant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A wild suggestion for Monofilament weapons? Given that stuff sticks around, introduce the risk of Mortal Wounds being inflicted if the targeted unit moves in its next movement phase. Not only is it pretty thematic, it’s a nice option for increasing board control opportunities.
Hell, you could go really wild and allow Warp Spiders to web up terrain pieces, with much the same threat.
But whatever rules the Aspects end up with, as your opponent I should be thinking “uh oh…..better deal with that Aspect which is really good against me before all my dudes end up dead”.
Please note. I am not a CWE player. So this isn’t some Wishlist stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and to see what happens when I properly shake out my brains on CWE?
you know, honestly, i'd rather my craftworld eldar NOT be a frustrating miserable experience for my opponent.
I dont need them to be good at everything always all the time, or for them to have tons of frustrating mechanics. What I do want from them is:
1) powerful psychically, but in a 'psychic stuff is infused throughout the army' more so than a 'AND THEY HAVE THE BEST STRONGEST PSYCHERS EVAR'. CWE psykers should be the shepards that move the army along and make it work nice and smoothly, with only the Warlock Conclave acting as the more traditional 'psychic battering ram' type unit
If I was going to characterize how CWE psychic stuff should operate, it'd be: Reliable, technical, used to buff or debuff rather than directly attack, and able to spread it out among many units rather than always just having 1-2 dedicated psykers
2) having an option for higher speed, but without fully embracing the glass cannon nature like DE do.
CWE should shift between being a faster army and being able to present durability to the foe with vehicles and wraiths, and I actually think the design for them should present the players with a sort of optimization triangle: You can be fast, you can be highly damaging, you can be durable, and you get to pick 2 at any given time.
if you had me redesign Battle Focus as an actually interesting core mechanic to design CWE around, I'd go with something like:
-Eldar units that advance can choose to either gain a defensive bonus, like an invulnerable save, or to be treated as if they stayed stationary for the purpose of shooting and charging
-Eldar units that stay stationary gain an offensive bonus, possibly to Wound rolls and Weapon Range in order to make shuriken weaponry more capable of harming elite targets (and then purposefully ensure that most eldar ranged weaponry is shorter base range than baseline imperial weaponry of corresponding types, like how currently shuricats are 12" and shuricannons are 24" while boltguns work out to 24" and heavy bolters to 36")
Allow eldar units to choose between fast and hard to hurt, fast and deadly, or deadly and hunkered down in advantageous positions, but carefully design it to ensure that if they try to exclusively do any of those things, they'll struggle against an enemy that doesnt have the choice.
A CWE army that exclusively goes with 'fast and deadly' should be slightly slower and slightly less deadly than a drukhari force. A CWE army that hunkers down and shoots should still lose a shoot-out with an imperial guard army. etc. As an Eldar player, you should have to choose the tactics that hit an opponent's weakness, rather than being able to just skew your list into one particular strength and beat out opponents who also have that as their fixed shtick.
The 'classic' ideal style of Eldar would have them using mobility and positioning to gain local superiority with specialised units, while being outmatched in a straight up army vs army slugfest.
But the current game moves too quickly, units shoot too far and with too much weight of fire, things are a lot less binary in terms of what they are and are not vulnerable to compared to earlier editions. It's hard to make an army themed around mobility and defeat in detail when games are about being engaged/holding a position immediately rather than playing to put your opponent three turns of play away from victory with only two turns left to get there.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: A big problem for CWE is they’re the army with the least change since Rogue Trader.
.
troo story and game has changed and fluffly the CWE haven't
I'm honestly not sure how to fix it, nearly every faction having re-rolls, the smaller tables putting a damper on excessive speed and playing keep away whilst trying to hold objectives, and all psyker armies having Smite tsunamis rendering most non-smite mind bullets a bit mehh, suspect any fix will be more like Dark Kin, more shoots and nowt else
Perhaps some kind of Move-Shoot-Move could be introduced.
But, rather than an additional move, you can sort of store a part of your movement. Brace yourself, a ham fisted explanation follows.
Let’s say purely for argument’s sake and Nice Round Numbers, your unit has a 10” move.
In your movement phase, the unit moves 5”. It then lets rip in the Shooting Phase. Then, in your Assault phase, instead of assaulting, the unit can then use up the rest of its movement.
Include a caveat or something to stop them running in and out of the same part of cover (in my head, it’s a graceful single manoeuvre as they scuttle between pieces of cover.)
That’s the best I can think of getting it to work in the current 40K turn structure. And I’ve probably got that bit wrong
Turnip Jedi wrote: troo story and game has changed and fluffly the CWE haven't
They had a fairly big change in 6th, gaining an across the board increase to durability and general purpose firepower making them less specialised.
From a unit standpoint though they were one of (if not the most) broad ranges early on so were mostly treading water while other factions caught up (or lost units and then regained them - across the editions Eldar have generally managed to hold on to everything unlike Orks for example).
Turnip Jedi wrote: troo story and game has changed and fluffly the CWE haven't
They had a fairly big change in 6th, gaining an across the board increase to durability and general purpose firepower making them less specialised.
From a unit standpoint though they were one of (if not the most) broad ranges early on so were mostly treading water while other factions caught up (or lost units and then regained them - across the editions Eldar have generally managed to hold on to everything unlike Orks for example).
Yeah, it also doesnt help that the 'advanced tech' factions (Tau, Necrons, Eldar) have all basically had their advanced tech one-upped by the 'backwards, decaying, ignorant empire' factions (Marines, Custodes, Admech, heck now even some SoB units like the warsuits...)
Devastating necron deathrays are D6 shots, 4+BS, D6 damage levels of unreliable while admech is rocking like 2+ to hit D3+3 weapons with fixed shot numbers.
Wyldhunt wrote: For years, I've heard people say that they should be glass cannons, but that feels a bit weird for a technologically advanced species that puts a lot of value on the lives of their remaining population. Plus, other space elves are already doing the glass cannon thing, and making them all compete for that same role means that you're likely to make at least one faction basically worse at the job than the others. Some people say they're meant to be a mobile, shooty army, but that's theoretically the tau niche. When I first started playing, they were an elite force equipped with more-powerful-than-normal wargear that made them specialists with an edge over their counterparts... But primaris marines are kind of filling that niche now, and it feels inappropriate to one-up marines at the "individually powerful" game by making eldar tech absurdly strong.
So how, in the abstract, should a craftworld army behave? How should their future playstyle be described?
Eldar should be a fast and coordinated force that can, operationally, run rings around more plodding opposition. They should rely not just on speed for defense, but on never presenting an optimal target, only hard counters to the current threat. Their defense doesn't come from killing you first (Drukhari) or taking a hit while dishing it back out (Primaris), it comes from a combination of speed, deception, and other tricks to ensure they're never where you want them to be. Eldar should be the faction that plays a cat-and-mouse game of advantageous trades until the enemy is whittled down and defeated in detail (or simply abandoned, as the Eldar achieve whatever inscrutable objective they came for), and bringing force to bear against them should be like trying to eat jello with chopsticks.
That's the fluff, at least. Lacking any sort of mechanics to represent operational flexibility or even just speed as a defense, I think the best you can do under the current design paradigm is hand out invuln saves like candy and lean hard into stratagems that allow them to manipulate the battlespace. But since this is a game where it is very difficult to be out of sight, out of range, or out of reach, I don't expect any implementation to live up to that fluff.
Mad Doc Grotsnik's idea of move-shoot-move is a fun one that hearkens back to how they functioned in Battlefleet Gothic (though there they just got two movement phases, basically, with zero-to-full movement both times), and that mechanic absolutely nailed the cat-and-mouse feel I described above. But it also seems like it might be a bit too much bookkeeping for the current incarnation of the game, and 40K isn't nearly as maneuver-restricted as BFG was, so I don't know if it would be impactful. I could definitely see a simpler version- forgo movement in the movement phase, get to move in the charge phase instead- as either a stratagem or army-wide rule.
Wyldhunt wrote: For years, I've heard people say that they should be glass cannons, but that feels a bit weird for a technologically advanced species that puts a lot of value on the lives of their remaining population. Plus, other space elves are already doing the glass cannon thing, and making them all compete for that same role means that you're likely to make at least one faction basically worse at the job than the others. Some people say they're meant to be a mobile, shooty army, but that's theoretically the tau niche. When I first started playing, they were an elite force equipped with more-powerful-than-normal wargear that made them specialists with an edge over their counterparts... But primaris marines are kind of filling that niche now, and it feels inappropriate to one-up marines at the "individually powerful" game by making eldar tech absurdly strong.
So how, in the abstract, should a craftworld army behave? How should their future playstyle be described?
Eldar should be a fast and coordinated force that can, operationally, run rings around more plodding opposition. They should rely not just on speed for defense, but on never presenting an optimal target, only hard counters to the current threat. Their defense doesn't come from killing you first (Drukhari) or taking a hit while dishing it back out (Primaris), it comes from a combination of speed, deception, and other tricks to ensure they're never where you want them to be. Eldar should be the faction that plays a cat-and-mouse game of advantageous trades until the enemy is whittled down and defeated in detail (or simply abandoned, as the Eldar achieve whatever inscrutable objective they came for), and bringing force to bear against them should be like trying to eat jello with chopsticks.
That's the fluff, at least. Lacking any sort of mechanics to represent operational flexibility or even just speed as a defense, I think the best you can do under the current design paradigm is hand out invuln saves like candy and lean hard into stratagems that allow them to manipulate the battlespace. But since this is a game where it is very difficult to be out of sight, out of range, or out of reach, I don't expect any implementation to live up to that fluff.
Mad Doc Grotsnik's idea of move-shoot-move is a fun one that hearkens back to how they functioned in Battlefleet Gothic (though there they just got two movement phases, basically, with zero-to-full movement both times), and that mechanic absolutely nailed the cat-and-mouse feel I described above. But it also seems like it might be a bit too much bookkeeping for the current incarnation of the game, and 40K isn't nearly as maneuver-restricted as BFG was, so I don't know if it would be impactful. I could definitely see a simpler version- forgo movement in the movement phase, get to move in the charge phase instead- as either a stratagem or army-wide rule.
Yeah, its not like they can maneuver behind enemy units, or out of their range, lol.
"Aha, I have cunningly maneuvered to the rear of your clumsy monkeigh tank!"
"Ok. GUNNER! FIRE ALL CANNONS OUT OF THE EXHAUST PORTS!"
Bring back pop-up attacks. These where attacks where you put your flying tank taller then what everyouwhere hiding behind, shot your guns, and went back down again. Just hive your falkons behind ruins, kite and shoot. Hope you kill enough so that you can go out and claim points after some turns of shooting.
Niiai wrote: Bring back pop-up attacks. These where attacks where you put your flying tank taller then what everyouwhere hiding behind, shot your guns, and went back down again. Just hive your falkons behind ruins, kite and shoot. Hope you kill enough so that you can go out and claim points after some turns of shooting.
I'd imagine the difficulty in that was always going to giving it correspondingly lower firepower when you don't know what kind of cover any given group of players will have.
Perhaps less of an issue with the higher pace of the game now, safer deepstriking, etc.
Niiai wrote: Bring back pop-up attacks. These where attacks where you put your flying tank taller then what everyouwhere hiding behind, shot your guns, and went back down again. Just hive your falkons behind ruins, kite and shoot. Hope you kill enough so that you can go out and claim points after some turns of shooting.
No. That was a miserable play experience.
Its also frankly incompatible with the current terrain rules. The next 'quarterly update' needs to be a terrain overhaul before any faction can interact with the terrain in an 'advanced' way.
---
Baseline, eldar need real guns again. No more 'dying race running their lemmings into melee range to shoot off a volley of shurikens' before dying.
I still can't believe the shuriken catapult nerf has haunted the game for this long.
It was mostly meant as a joke. It was a horrible mechaic.
It should be metioned that warp spiders had a move after shooting. So you could shoot, and pop behind terain and not be seen. Eldar had a lot of that stuff back in the day.
The problem you underlined ilustraights one of the problems with it. The other is that there is small or no counterplay. Fire and fade, and the tau double jump suits plays around with the same mechanics.
Eldar beeing higly specialised (aspects warriors go down this path already). All eldar armies so far are quite fragile, but pushesh over their weight class. Drukhari and Harlequins lean into this. I have no idea how you balace it. Perhaps give each aspect warrior group a very unique rule. Make them good, fragile and specialised. Make wraight units though, like a different sub theme. Give them psyker buffs.
Eldar are supposed to rely on having units that are specific counters to the enemy, and the foresight to know what to bring with them.
This is hard to represent at the tactical level of 40k.
Therefore, let eldar players either choose an army in full knowledge of the enemy, or permit swapping out units during deployment. therefore, eldar players can get use out of specific units and don't have to rely on spamming one unit type that is just less bad at dealing with the enemies who are not their speific prey.
This will have the secondary benefit to GW that Eldar players will therefore need multiple units of EVERYTHING! just to allow counters to enemy armies
If Overwatch was an action that let you fire at units that move/are set up until the action was interrupted (which would usually be by firing the actual Overwatch attack), Move-Shoot-Move/pop-up firing mechanics/playstyles could work.
Eldar fail to convey the elven fantasy of superiority they are trying to replicate as a concept.
In 40k Eldar as a species are really not better than half the races, physically, including marines When you have a 400 year old eldar VS a 250 year old marine It doesnt sits as a 2000 year old lotr elf VS a human..
Technologically the are one of the advanced races, but arent really more advanced than necrons or the best dark age human relics.
The only thing they have going for them IS being a RACE of psychic sentient beings but theres other races of full Magic armies.
Dark Eldar never ever are seen as this mega elite army and they are also elfs. The only expectation people has with Dark eldar IS that they need to be fast.
Craftworld are a failed replication of the high elf idea, just like the fantasy of dwarves in 40k IS mostly stolen by marines as a sturdier and shootier with good meele of humans.
Flinty wrote: Eldar are supposed to rely on having units that are specific counters to the enemy, and the foresight to know what to bring with them.
This is hard to represent at the tactical level of 40k.
Especially because that's not how it's supposed to work. They deal in prophecy and skeins of fate. Their visions are fairly accurate compared to humans, but the interpretations can be wrong.
They're not time-travelers. They don't have 20/20 hindsight. They can be wrong about why their visions are pointing them towards something since a Farseer still has to interpret it.
An interesting way to handle this would be to allow for you to get to declare a specific objective of your own at the outset of the game if you've got a Farseer in your army. Whether it be taking out a specific character, sealing a Webway Portal via a ritual, whatever. An extra objective that you get to pick and choose for yourself.
I am 100% on board with the idea of Aspects being similar to Assassins for how they can be taken though...but if they do so, Aspects need to be their own thing 100%. They should be treated like Scions, where taking them as part of the army doesn't break the army's special rules but taking non-Aspect things can wreck the Aspects' bonuses if you were taking them as a pure faction. Give each Aspect its own bonus of some sort and let Autarchs pick and choose from Aspects on the field for which bonus they have active at a time.
If the concept is super specialised aspects that are great against a narrow range of opponents and rubbish against everything else, then does being able to choose an additional objective balance the likelihood of being kerb stomped by bad match ups? In the context off all the fluff I agree that eldar foresight isn’t perfect, but it at least gives a hook to hang some fancy last minute force change shenanigans from. Marines in the game do not match up exactly with the fluff based capabilities either, but the concept is there.
Flinty wrote: If the concept is super specialised aspects that are great against a narrow range of opponents and rubbish against everything else, then does being able to choose an additional objective balance the likelihood of being kerb stomped by bad match ups? In the context off all the fluff I agree that eldar foresight isn’t perfect, but it at least gives a hook to hang some fancy last minute force change shenanigans from. Marines in the game do not match up exactly with the fluff based capabilities either, but the concept is there.
Aspects should be a viable, potentially fieldable subfaction of their own within the Craftworlds book. Phoenix Lords should get an improved version of their Aspect's bonus while Autarchs get to pick and choose bonuses from the Aspects on the field.
They would have literally nothing to do with the additional objective. That's a Farseer being present in the army.
Idoneth, bluntly, have been a wonderful exemplar for what the Craftworlds could be. The Tides of Battle table is basically a giant honkin' blueprint for the Runes of Battle as a concept. Farseers as Tidecallers, able to flip the script at the start of the game if they choose to is aces.
It would be cool if Aspects could be treated similarly to assassins, where if you include them in an army list there is a stratagem to swap them for another aspect before the game starts.
A big problem for CWE is they’re the army with the least change since Rogue Trader.
In those days, armies were pretty small, perhaps a couple of dozen models, certainly well under 100.
In that, well, meta I suppose, you could afford to heavily specialise. Not only were there rather limited options for building your army, the pool of units was quite small. So a CWE force was less likely to end up fighting something it didn’t have some kind of specialist unit to counter with.
Of course, the game has grown and expanded. Lots and lots of units, whole new armies, and a greater availability of tanks and flyers. CWE have to my mind never quite kept up with those changes.
In particular, the Aspects are just nowhere near what they once were in terms of being a scary prospect. In 2nd Ed, Howling Banshees and Warp Spiders in particular were horrific to fight. I won’t go into the exact mechanics, but suffice to say both absolutely excelled in their specialist sphere. If Banshees got into combat, they’d have to fail pretty hard not to simply delete the victim of their attentions, and Warp Spiders would regularly turn their targets to soup, before running off like the cowards they are.
This I feel is best reflected that whilst CWE have usually been a force to be reckoned with into the modern day, it’s often been due to beardy spam lists, rather than the whole of the thing being viable. Please note I am not having a go at anyone who fields or fielded such armies.
There are a few things they could do with recovering rules wise.
First, make Aspects utterly deadly again. If I as your opponent fail to deal with them (such as shooting Banshees to death) then they should spank me like a red headed stepchild.
Second, greater interaction with Psychic Powers. Allowing Guardian Squads to take a Warlock as a unit leader is a decent start there.
Third? Bring Back Pop Up Attacks. These were ace. Basically you parked your Grav tank behind some terrain, and in your turn it could levitate to take its shot, before returning to safety. It could be frustrating for an opponent, but as with many of their former strengths, it required me as the opponent to be more aggressive and try to control and dictate the flow of the battle.
Make them a frustrating foe. Make them an encounter where the opponent must seize the initiative or be run rings around. Keep them relatively fragile, so when we can land a blow it feels satisfying. But man the opponent should need to really sing for their supper when facing a skilled CWE player.
Exalted, but especially this:
"First, make Aspects utterly deadly again."
In particular, if a CC Aspect makes it into contact with Marines, the Marines should get trounced.
That would run up against the Astartes power fantasy and is probably a no-go.
I have no idea how you would go about making a unit-swapped army work. It'd be like playing a card game where you get to pick out all the trump cards from the deck after your opponent has shown their hand.
Flinty wrote: If the concept is super specialised aspects that are great against a narrow range of opponents and rubbish against everything else..
They weren't exactly that specialised - more that you'd have a unit good against tanks and monsters but not able to punch through an infantry screen for example, so you would need to have another unit on hand to support them if they were screened out. In theory anyway, and it was always hard to be the tricksy elf army when you were advertising the function of each of your units.
There just used to be a whole lot less to consider in early editions when it came to be specialised- it was a game of paper scissors stone, now it's paper scissors rock lizard spock dynamite lightning dragon water moon sponge ...
A.T. wrote: I have no idea how you would go about making a unit-swapped army work. It'd be like playing a card game where you get to pick out all the trump cards from the deck after your opponent has shown their hand.
"Craftworld armies can allot up to 20 PL as Premonition Power. In step X of the pre-game sequence, they can pick up to the alloted Premonition Power value of ASPECT units to add to their army. In Combat Patrol games a Craftworld army can allot only 10 PL, in Incursion games a Craftworld army can allot up to 30 PL, and in Onslaught games a Craftworld army can allot up to 50 PL.
Designer's notes: In Matched Play games a Craftworld player must pay reinforcement points for any units added to their army list in this way."
Something like that, so it's not like they get to tailor their entire list. They just get to bring the right tools for the job, and then have to execute the job.
A.T. wrote: I have no idea how you would go about making a unit-swapped army work. It'd be like playing a card game where you get to pick out all the trump cards from the deck after your opponent has shown their hand.
"Craftworld armies can allot up to 20 PL as Premonition Power. In step X of the pre-game sequence, they can pick up to the alloted Premonition Power value of ASPECT units to add to their army. In Combat Patrol games a Craftworld army can allot only 10 PL, in Incursion games a Craftworld army can allot up to 30 PL, and in Onslaught games a Craftworld army can allot up to 50 PL.
Designer's notes: In Matched Play games a Craftworld player must pay reinforcement points for any units added to their army list in this way."
Something like that, so it's not like they get to tailor their entire list. They just get to bring the right tools for the job, and then have to execute the job.
For the sake of avoiding time-consuming last minute list rewrites, you could make it even more like the assassin rules and turn it into a strat.
Premonitions of Battle (2CP)
Use this stratagem during the Deployment step before you deploy any units. You may remove one <Aspect> unit from your army and replace it with a single <Aspect> unit that costs equal or fewer points (or Power Level). The new unit has the same <Craftworld> as the original unit.
I'm not convinced leaning into the sideboard idea too heavily is a good idea (even though it's cool), but this would be a way to allow it in a limited fashion.
Flinty wrote: Eldar are supposed to rely on having units that are specific counters to the enemy, and the foresight to know what to bring with them.
This is hard to represent at the tactical level of 40k.
Therefore, let eldar players either choose an army in full knowledge of the enemy, or permit swapping out units during deployment. therefore, eldar players can get use out of specific units and don't have to rely on spamming one unit type that is just less bad at dealing with the enemies who are not their speific prey.
This will have the secondary benefit to GW that Eldar players will therefore need multiple units of EVERYTHING! just to allow counters to enemy armies
This is quite possibly the single most broken rule I've ever seen suggested in a thread like this.
If allowed in any way that is significant, the ability to just swap out entire units is game-breakingly powerful. Being able to tailor your list on the fly in tournaments would break competitive play.
Which is really representative of the problem, isn't it? Your post went the furthest, but this sentiment that CWE as an army should focus on hard-countering with highly specialized units while being dogshit otherwise is incredibly hard to balance.
This is an excellent question Wyldhunt with many great answers in the thread already.
For me I've always found Eldar to be a very engaging lorewise since they're somewhat of an underdog faction. Sure they used to be top dog in the galaxy before their hubris ruined it all but now they're a dying race clinging on to their last breath of life. They don't have numbers, they can't afford casualties (unless Gav Thorpe is writing), and while their technology and powers are mighty they are often a double edged sword. That's only scratching the surface there's plenty of other distinct fluff in there that makes the 40k kitchen sink setting so appealing.
As for how to represent that on the tabletop, that's a tough one, but I hope they got something unique (like how Cabal Points were a unique spin for 1k Sons) where they are rewarded for not taking casualties (for living Eldar at least), and have play styles setup that allow them to engage in subterfuge & treachery, a bit more brains than brawn. I think that would be fun and very unique for an army to play like that.
If allowed in any way that is significant, the ability to just swap out entire units is game-breakingly powerful. Being able to tailor your list on the fly in tournaments would break competitive play.
Good, i hope Competitive Play's disability pay is refused as well after it's broken.
Joking aside, the best way to represent how eldar work would be to give them unique missions and side objectives, to show that they're not really playing the same game of take and hold as every other race. BUUT that'd make competitive scene scream like someone took shears do its privates i imagine so it's not really feasible (and I dont think GW can handle the inherent difficulty of coming up with inventive missions anyway).
Something to 100% consider as well is exploring some alternate weapon options for a few Aspects.
Nothing wrong with Fire Dragons having their Firepikes, Flamers, or Fusion Gun(it's the Fusion Gun that's their version of a melta right? I kept waffling between Gun or Blaster and I'm 99% sure that the Fusion Blaster is the Tau version), but they need to retain a part of that theme: for Fire Dragons it's right there in the name. Flamers+Fusion are set in what they do, they're a Known Quantity. Letting the Firepike be a happy medium between the two outliers would be a Good Thing.
Could see Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers seeing alternate loadouts too. It wouldn't detract from what they are, conceptually, while also giving the Aspects a bit of variability.
Could even fluff it as different Temples having different ideas of the Aspect itself.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I feel this is particularly noticeable with Striking Scorpions, as the Exarch’s claw is suited to targets the rest of the squad just, well, isn’t.
That is by player choice though - exarchs have options to either add to their squads speciality or to cover one of the squads weaknesses.
The problem with "aspect warriors should be hyper specialized and super deadly against one particular type of enemy but weak against others" is that the basis of the game design doesn't really allow that to happen using the standard game mechanics. A unit which is highly specialized at killing vehicles is also going to be really good at killing terminators, simply on the basis that most armies don't field units of more than 5 terminators and a squad of 5-6 vehicle killers with proper buffs wills till annihilate a squad of terminators despite haivng low ROF (see also: Fire Dragons).
The only way to achieve this design goal is to give aspects absolutely wonky special rules and weapon stats. I.E. Weapons which are strength 3, ap 0 d1 against INFANTRY, but are strength 8, ap -4, d6 against VEHICLES and MONSTERS. Units which can fight twice or shoot twice against units with toughness 3 or less, or 2+/3+ armor saves, etc. Stuff like that. Otherwise, basic rules and capabilities otherwise essentially picks winners and losers as certain specializations inherently come with the toolset to tackle a wider range of problems and answer a broader range of questions posed by threats than others will.
chaos0xomega wrote: The problem with "aspect warriors should be hyper specialized and super deadly against one particular type of enemy but weak against others" is that the basis of the game design doesn't really allow that to happen using the standard game mechanics. A unit which is highly specialized at killing vehicles is also going to be really good at killing terminators, simply on the basis that most armies don't field units of more than 5 terminators and a squad of 5-6 vehicle killers with proper buffs wills till annihilate a squad of terminators despite haivng low ROF (see also: Fire Dragons).
The only way to achieve this design goal is to give aspects absolutely wonky special rules and weapon stats. I.E. Weapons which are strength 3, ap 0 d1 against INFANTRY, but are strength 8, ap -4, d6 against VEHICLES and MONSTERS. Units which can fight twice or shoot twice against units with toughness 3 or less, or 2+/3+ armor saves, etc. Stuff like that. Otherwise, basic rules and capabilities otherwise essentially picks winners and losers as certain specializations inherently come with the toolset to tackle a wider range of problems and answer a broader range of questions posed by threats than others will.
a squad of fire dragons takes down 2 terminators in melta range, but Terminators and other W3 infantry are right on the cusp of being basically walking tanks anyway....as I think a lot of players believe they should be.
But elite infantry compared to tanks is generally more likely to have invulnerable saves and mid toughness values - the only reason why FD's work well against Terminators is because they have T4, which is unusual for a 38ppm elite infantry unit. The same unit is merely decent at taking down (for example) Grotesques, a similarly costed elite infantry unit that doesnt have quite the ideal stat distribution termiantors have.
chaos0xomega wrote: The only way to achieve this design goal is to give aspects absolutely wonky special rules and weapon stats
They don't need to be bad, just inefficient.
Ideally a specialist squad like firedragons would perform far better than their points in generalist units when positioned well, but worse when positioned poorly (i.e. your standard 10 men two melta and a powerfist type squad is much more useful against chaff when you've mis-moved it or been cut off by a screening unit, but far less devastating if given a free run to their objective).
Eldar should play as they did best in Man o War and Gothic, skirting the edges of range, ducking in and out of line of sight, popping off from long ranges with lances, leading frustrated units into traps. If met head on, if senseless enough to charge into the center, then they should melt to most everything. Attrition is not something that Eldar can do well. They are low in numbers, relying on wraith (ghosts, effectively) units to fill in where volume of fire and numbers of tougher factions (orks, marines) may take and hold. Trouble is, this is not a gameplay style that is 1) intuitive and 2) possible on kitchen table cardboard box sized boards. Bring back 8x4foot tables, make the game play at 1500 pts for 5 to 7 turns, and then Eldar should have gamespace for their distinctive gameplan. Otherwise, it is square peg round hole trying to make CWE fit on a tiny table packed with harder units that can charge most everywhere almost immediately and with cover and terrain rules that do nothing to help.
Look it's pretty clear that GW has spent the last 10 years mining the eldar army for ideas to give to the imperium, so nothing they do is unique to them any more.
They've also spent a long time removing core mechanics that advantage the eldar, as well as removing the capacity for shenanigans because their opponent's don't enjoy being shenaniganed.
So, in the current paradigm of 40k, what they're going to have to do is take a leaf out of the imperium's book and give it back to the eldar.
Within the paradigm, extra wounds, toughness save and invulnerables are the only means of protection, so that will need to be used in a variety of ways for the eldar.
ie: guardian armour is 4+, aspect armour is 3+, heavy aspect armour is T+1 3+ (reapers, scorpions, warp spiders, dragons all are T4 3+).
Their weapons need to go back to being superior to non eldar weapons.
Aspects need to be seen as classes from shrines and shrines as the large war schools they are, not some kitchy joe's dojo on the corner street. Exarchs need to be explored and separated further into differring levels of skill and I wouldn't say no to aspects that have trod the same path multiple times and are elite just shy of exarchs, as small squads.
As I've said before, they need to balance the combat aspect of the army first and make it viable, BEFORE adding psykers. The army is very one note with always having a farseer or 2.
Autarchs are pointless at the moment.
IMO they need to build the army in 3 ways:
Guardian host
Aspect host
Wraith host
With a leadership combination of seers, exarchs and autarchs.
Unless they decide to really change the core mechanics, there are only a few narrow options for them to pursue.
jeff white wrote: Eldar should play as they did best in Man o War and Gothic, skirting the edges of range, ducking in and out of line of sight, popping off from long ranges with lances, leading frustrated units into traps. If met head on, if senseless enough to charge into the center, then they should melt to most everything. Attrition is not something that Eldar can do well. They are low in numbers, relying on wraith (ghosts, effectively) units to fill in where volume of fire and numbers of tougher factions (orks, marines) may take and hold. Trouble is, this is not a gameplay style that is 1) intuitive and 2) possible on kitchen table cardboard box sized boards. Bring back 8x4foot tables, make the game play at 1500 pts for 5 to 7 turns, and then Eldar should have gamespace for their distinctive gameplan. Otherwise, it is square peg round hole trying to make CWE fit on a tiny table packed with harder units that can charge most everywhere almost immediately and with cover and terrain rules that do nothing to help.
An army based on being untouchable will never work, no matter how large you make your table. The game plan you are suggesting is merely asking back for easy wins by moving back faster than enemies can advance and while outshooting everyone. Pretty much every edition before 9th has shown how horrible and hated this kind of playstyle is and that it should never, ever come back. Besides that, no-mans land is just as many inches as it has been since 5th, irrespective of table size.
Eldar should totally be able to outrun their enemies, but they should do so by running circles around them, not by moving away in straight line and shooting from positions that infantry couldn't even dream of reaching them in two games. An idea how this could be realized would be by allowing eldar to move after shooting (pile in in any direction like some warlord traits?) or by letting them advance without any penalties or restrictions. Or you could allow stationary eldar to move at the end of the shooting phase or something, effectively an army-wide fire and fade.
Super-specializing aspects also isn't that hard, they could just give them highly specialized bespoke rules that help them against their preferred targets, similar to beast snaggas. Almost all of them could use some help anyways, so a strong buff against their intended targets would still leave them quite "meh" against everything else.
One more thing I feel like it is lacking with my current favorite nemesis is the feel of psychic might that they had in the past. In 5th a farseer could pick up tanks and spinn them around, and warlocks could fry half a unit of boyz with their mind. Right now, the slew of buffs and debuffs at their arsenal might be strong mechanically, but they don't feel "mighty". Instead, they feel like imperial officiers sending orders with their mind instead of yelling them.
jeff white wrote: Eldar should play as they did best in Man o War and Gothic, skirting the edges of range, ducking in and out of line of sight, popping off from long ranges with lances, leading frustrated units into traps. If met head on, if senseless enough to charge into the center, then they should melt to most everything. Attrition is not something that Eldar can do well. They are low in numbers, relying on wraith (ghosts, effectively) units to fill in where volume of fire and numbers of tougher factions (orks, marines) may take and hold. Trouble is, this is not a gameplay style that is 1) intuitive and 2) possible on kitchen table cardboard box sized boards. Bring back 8x4foot tables, make the game play at 1500 pts for 5 to 7 turns, and then Eldar should have gamespace for their distinctive gameplan. Otherwise, it is square peg round hole trying to make CWE fit on a tiny table packed with harder units that can charge most everywhere almost immediately and with cover and terrain rules that do nothing to help.
An army based on being untouchable will never work, no matter how large you make your table. The game plan you are suggesting is merely asking back for easy wins by moving back faster than enemies can advance and while outshooting everyone.
Pretty much every edition before 9th has shown how horrible and hated this kind of playstyle is and that it should never, ever come back.
To some extent, I feel like the style jeff is describing (which is totally how I though they would behave when I first got into the game) is sort of like Alpha Legion trickery. In theory, 99% of their fights should be perfectly orchestrated one-sided affairs. But 40k games assume that both players have roughly equally threatening forces that will trade blows on the table rather than spending an afternoon slowly getting whittled down by ambushes and guerilla attacks. So like, what jeff is describing definitely seems like it should be how eldar do battle, but the game (especially 9th edition) doesn't really support that. Which is partly why I created this thread. What do eldar look like if we assume they're not allowed to actually utilize their speed and trickery as advertised?
Besides that, no-mans land is just as many inches as it has been since 5th, irrespective of table size.
Eldar should totally be able to outrun their enemies, but they should do so by running circles around them, not by moving away in straight line and shooting from positions that infantry couldn't even dream of reaching them in two games.
Eh. So in 8th edition, I could spread out objectives and spend a big chunk of the game fight on opposite or denying a flank after suckering my opponent into committing to one side.I wasn't really kiting per se, but I could use my speed to nope off far enough from one chunk of the enemy army to leave them without targets. In 9th edition, the table is small enough and enemies fast enough to make working the flanks like that difficult. So while we technically move faster than the enemy, there's kind of nowhere to move except straight toward the enemy or the objectives.
An idea how this could be realized would be by allowing eldar to move after shooting (pile in in any direction like some warlord traits?) or by letting them advance without any penalties or restrictions.
Or you could allow stationary eldar to move at the end of the shooting phase or something, effectively an army-wide fire and fade.
I'm all for bringing back a form of move-shoot-move, but I'm surprised you like the idea given that it's basically a way to kite the enemy without having to move as far.
Super-specializing aspects also isn't that hard, they could just give them highly specialized bespoke rules that help them against their preferred targets, similar to beast snaggas. Almost all of them could use some help anyways, so a strong buff against their intended targets would still leave them quite "meh" against everything else.
I played eldar back in 5th when they were still leaning extra hard into the "specialized targets" thing. Honestly, the 6th edition and onward paradigm shift of letting units be a little more flexible just works better without really sacrificing a sense of identity. Like, you could give Fire Dragons S1 guns that always wound vehicles on a 2+, but just giving them meltaguns is simpler and avoids making them useless when you face armies without tanks. I feel like modern eldar should be "specialized" in the sense that each aspect fills a niche without too much crossover between aspects. That doesn't have to mean that they're only good against one very specific target type. For instance, banshees and dark reapers can both be decent at killing marines, but the former's niche could be tarpitting via scream debuffs (letting you shut down targets too tough to kill outright) while the reapers' niche is having more reach than most units in your army, shutting down to-hit penalties, or somehow offering supporting fire to other units.
One more thing I feel like it is lacking with my current favorite nemesis is the feel of psychic might that they had in the past. In 5th a farseer could pick up tanks and spinn them around, and warlocks could fry half a unit of boyz with their mind. Right now, the slew of buffs and debuffs at their arsenal might be strong mechanically, but they don't feel "mighty". Instead, they feel like imperial officiers sending orders with their mind instead of yelling them.
I don't really mind our powers generally being more subtle, but I agree about missing the feeling of tossing an eldritch storm or a destructor template on something. Current destructor actually being a nerf (outside of a conclave) rather than a buff feels really weird too. I also miss warlock buffs being always-on. Like, our safety-first psykers being so good at their powers that they were always active rather than fizzling out about 40% of the time was a nice nod to our fluff without being tremendously powerful.
Wyldhunt wrote: I'm all for bringing back a form of move-shoot-move, but I'm surprised you like the idea given that it's basically a way to kite the enemy without having to move as far.
I'm not opposed to eldar being faster than most other armies, that is part of their fluff and their identity. This kind of kiting can be countered by attacking them in a pincer attack, cutting off their escape routes with fast elements or blasting them with powerful guns from a distance. Every army has the ability to one or the other.
What I'm opposed to is the non-interactive playstyle that you were describing earlier in your post that allowed them to dodge out range of anything but long-ranged weapons entirely. This does not work in a game that has entire armies relying on 5" movement and 24" range weapons.
A couple of months ago I started a thread about the traits of the most prominent 40K factions. According to that Eldar should play like this:
- Most mobile of all factions. This doesn´t only include fast vehicles but the ability to use warp tunnels and psi-powers to quickly relocate units on the table.
- Long range firepower. This suits a high-tech faction very well and was a trait for them in 2nd and in Epic. However GW trashed the Eldar since 3rd when they reduced shuriken catapults to 12´´ range.
- Emphasis on force shields rather than thick armour for protection.
- General aspect: Highly specialized army. They have aspect warriors for every combat role. Downside would be that Eldar can´t improvise. So if you don´t bring scorpions or banshees you will suck in cc.
- Small unit sizes. Goes well with the fluff of a dying race and the need to pay a lot of points for their exotic tech.
The above listed traits were watered down to some degree with the arrival of Tau and Dark Eldar which made zero sense gamewise but a lot of sense considering the sales driven ruleset of 40K. So now the game is burdened with three high-tech races which needlessly add to the faction bloat.
A couple of months ago I started a thread about the traits of the most prominent 40K factions. According to that Eldar should play like this:
- Most mobile of all factions. This doesn´t only include fast vehicles but the ability to use warp tunnels and psi-powers to quickly relocate units on the table.
- Long range firepower. This suits a high-tech faction very well and was a trait for them in 2nd and in Epic. However GW trashed the Eldar since 3rd when they reduced shuriken catapults to 12´´ range.
- Emphasis on force shields rather than thick armour for protection.
These surprise me a little. I definitely think of us as being fast, and a single unit (warp spiders) use the warp to relocate, but to my knowledge using psychic powers to relocate hasn't really been our thing in fluff or on the tabletop. I guess we had access to Gate of Infinity in 7th edition? We have Quicken now, but iirc it didn't provide a double-move until 8th edition.
Long-range firepower definitely makes sense for us, but most of our units have traditionally been pretty short-ranged. Reapers and heavy weapon platforms are just about our only man-portable guns with more than 24" range, and most of our heavy weapons have comparable or inferior range to our imperial counterparts. Shuriken catapults specifically did get a range decrease back in the day though. Basically, I agree that having long-ranged weapons makes sense, but it's odd to me that people feel this is a part of our identity given that we haven't actually been all that long-ranged for big chunks of our history.
We have *some* force shields, but they're pretty scattered through the army. War walkers, wave serpents, autarchs, wraith blades, and maybe avenger exarchs (shimmer shields) are described as being force-fields. Psykers sort of have them via rune armor, but that's a different sort of tech. Our tanks can take holo-fields that aren't force-fields but more like light shows that trick your eyes. 8th edition gave guardians a celestial shield strat. But aspect warriors, most wraith units, vypers, rangers, pre-8th guardians, vaul support batteries, and most phoenix lords have generally gone without force-fields. So it's another thing that would make sense for them, but I don't tend to think of force-fields as being an iconic piece of eldar kit.
It makes me wonder if, when we are talking about how the eldar, doing the whole dying race reliant on superior tech and psychic ability thing, could be an army that NEEDS combined arms. I had this thought that they could be a army that leans really heavily into debuffs.
We've got a lot of armies that have synergies by combining characters and CORE units to give a killer combo. But maybe eldar should work that each unit makes life harder for the enemy in some specific way... slowing them down, reducing armour saves, removing invuln, lowering morale. The whole 'death of a thousand cuts' treatment.
I'm no expert in coming up with mechanics to support this, but it could be less annoying than pop-up attacks (as it doesn't totally neutralize you... just makes everything harder).
My only thought would be to go with the combined arms idea, that the debuffs a unit gives should be of limited benefit to that unit... so spamming one aspect won't help, you would need something else to take advantage of it.
But as a lot of people have said, with the number of factions we have, and the limited wiggle room in game mechanics... it'll be interesting to see what GW come up with to make them fun and unique.
That's essentially how a lot of Eldar psyker powers work by crippling the enemy, the problem is a lot of them have such a poor range it's a big gambit to even attempt. A range boost to those debilitating powers would be nice.
It would be nice to have the ability to make life harder for the enemy without it being Psyker only trait as well, something to represent the misdirection, superior stealth, and treachery of the Eldar.
It makes me wonder if, when we are talking about how the eldar, doing the whole dying race reliant on superior tech and psychic ability thing, could be an army that NEEDS combined arms. I had this thought that they could be a army that leans really heavily into debuffs.
We've got a lot of armies that have synergies by combining characters and CORE units to give a killer combo. But maybe eldar should work that each unit makes life harder for the enemy in some specific way... slowing them down, reducing armour saves, removing invuln, lowering morale. The whole 'death of a thousand cuts' treatment.
I'm no expert in coming up with mechanics to support this, but it could be less annoying than pop-up attacks (as it doesn't totally neutralize you... just makes everything harder).
My only thought would be to go with the combined arms idea, that the debuffs a unit gives should be of limited benefit to that unit... so spamming one aspect won't help, you would need something else to take advantage of it.
But as a lot of people have said, with the number of factions we have, and the limited wiggle room in game mechanics... it'll be interesting to see what GW come up with to make them fun and unique.
Yeah. It would be tricky to work out the specifics, but I like the high-concept of this. It lets eldar seem badass not by overpowering the enemy ala space marines, but by having the skill and tech to mitigate the enemy's ability to hit back. My fire dragons are alive at the end of the game not because their advanced armor gives them T5 and 3 wounds, but because their banshee and spider pals kept the enemy tangled up while the dragons killed the big guns.
Some thoughts I've had along these lines:
* Banshee masks prevent the enemy from falling back (probably replaces the overwatch cancelling rule). So while reasonably killy, banshees' job is more about keeping select units from shooting/charging rather than murdering targets outright.
* Warp spiders. When they don't split fire, put a "monofilament token" next to their target until the start of the next eldar turn. Units with a monofilament token have a chance of taking mortal wounds if they move. Chance goes up if they move farther or advance. Number of wounds goes up if they're a larger squad. Or just lower the target's movement and prevent advancing instead of doing MW.
* Scorpions: Let them arrive from reserves on the enemy turn after enemy reserves have arrived. This means scorpions can potentially block enemy charges (hidden countercharge) or that they're in position to get an easy charge on your own turn if your opponent doesn't dedicate shooting towards the unexpected threat.
* Dragons: Honestly, these guys should probably just be a simple, cost-efficient anti-tank unit. But I like the idea of being able to manipulate Explodes! tests (similar to the Alpha Legion stratagem). Dragons kind of encourage your opponent to spread out because every vehicle in their army is that much more likely to turn into a pile of mortal wounds. Alternatively, any vehicle that loses wounds to a fire dragon uses its lowest wounds bracket in the following turn becaues the dragons know how to target key systems if they can't kill a target outright.
* Hawks: Possibly my favorite aspect, but I really really miss their haywire grenades. Wouldn't mind seeing their grenade packs shift away from dealing damage and towards applying debuffs to targeted units. Alternatively, just bring back the sunrifle and its blind rule. Let the sunrifle shut off overwatch or reduce BS for a turn. Slightly off-topic, but I miss Baharroth letting these guys hit & run, and we should maybe consider changing sky leap to an instant relocation rule given how short 9e games are and the size of the board.
* Avengers: I'd love for these guys to get Tau style overwatch and a stratagem to intercept charges. It would give their melee options a little more value and turn them into a unit that you take to protect your other units rather than trying to make them extra murdery in their own right.
* Spears: Like dragons, I feel like these guys should probably be more of a straight-forward hammer unit.
* Reapers: You could give these guys Death Jester/Interceptor(?) style rules. Let them turn off overwatch of the units they target. Maybe let the exarch snipe out specific models from units. Maybe let them overwatch for friendly units. But honestly, reapers are kind of okay as another raw damage hammer unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Red Hobbit wrote: That's essentially how a lot of Eldar psyker powers work by crippling the enemy, the problem is a lot of them have such a poor range it's a big gambit to even attempt. A range boost to those debilitating powers would be nice.
It would be nice to have the ability to make life harder for the enemy without it being Psyker only trait as well, something to represent the misdirection, superior stealth, and treachery of the Eldar.
The problem that I run into is that I just don't have the points or slots to squeeze in a ton of psykers, and other powers take priority. Especially on the Runes of Battle table. Jinx is great, but do I really want to Enervate a single enemy unit when I could Empower one of my own units and just kill that enemy instead? Do I want to give one of my opponent's units a movement penalty, or do I want to double move my own unit out of their threat range or close enough to blast them off the table?
If guardian squad warlock sergeants made a return, I'd probably end up using all of the RoBattle powers.
A couple of months ago I started a thread about the traits of the most prominent 40K factions. According to that Eldar should play like this:
- Most mobile of all factions. This doesn´t only include fast vehicles but the ability to use warp tunnels and psi-powers to quickly relocate units on the table.
- Long range firepower. This suits a high-tech faction very well and was a trait for them in 2nd and in Epic. However GW trashed the Eldar since 3rd when they reduced shuriken catapults to 12´´ range.
- Emphasis on force shields rather than thick armour for protection.
- General aspect: Highly specialized army. They have aspect warriors for every combat role. Downside would be that Eldar can´t improvise. So if you don´t bring scorpions or banshees you will suck in cc.
- Small unit sizes. Goes well with the fluff of a dying race and the need to pay a lot of points for their exotic tech.
The above listed traits were watered down to some degree with the arrival of Tau and Dark Eldar which made zero sense gamewise but a lot of sense considering the sales driven ruleset of 40K. So now the game is burdened with three high-tech races which needlessly add to the faction bloat.
TBH i think "long range firepower" as an army trait will never, ever work on the new tiny board. "outranging" an enemy is meaningless. Space Marines and IG have range = board on basically all their stuff, you could make shuricats 48" range and it'd be a meaningless distinction.
Instead, I think the only way to achieve the "mobile, finesse-based" fantasy of eldar/harlequins is via some kind of post-attack movement paradigm. If you just hand them invulns but call them "dodgey-dodges" then you end up with the current frustratingly tanky setup harlequins have. The ONLY way to increase your defenses naturally using movement in 9e is to move yourself behind Obscuring or Dense cover, and even Dense is...basically meaningless.
So, that leaves us with move-shoot-move or move-attack-move as our option, and the obvious drawback is to stick with the limited range weaponry paradigm theyre currently on.
It could work. Probably would work even better if yu also allow eldar units to embark with their second move, so a wave serpent could facilitate one squad swapping out of the serpent and another squad swapping in.
The above listed traits were watered down to some degree with the arrival of Tau and Dark Eldar which made zero sense gamewise but a lot of sense considering the sales driven ruleset of 40K. So now the game is burdened with three high-tech races which needlessly add to the faction bloat.
Necrons are not only also high tech, but they are the highest tech army in the galaxy.
Tau being high tech is also arguable. They certainly have more reliable tech than the Imperium but are not even in the same ballpark in certain areas, like teleportation. Even their plasma is less more powerful and more has maximum output throttled for safety.
Surely we can all agree that Guardians shouldn't have to enter charge range of everything in the game just to use their basic weaponry, right? 18" ShuriCats at the very least, right?
And yeah, Tau aren't high-tech. They're efficient tech. They're what the Imperium could be if they studied their guns rather than praying to them.
Rihgu wrote: "Craftworld armies can allot up to 20 PL as Premonition Power. In step X of the pre-game sequence, they can pick up to the alloted Premonition Power value of ASPECT units to add to their army. In Combat Patrol games a Craftworld army can allot only 10 PL, in Incursion games a Craftworld army can allot up to 30 PL, and in Onslaught games a Craftworld army can allot up to 50 PL.
Designer's notes: In Matched Play games a Craftworld player must pay reinforcement points for any units added to their army list in this way."
That's a whole lot'a rules for a play mechanic that most people don't use outside of Crusade (PL), and then a completely different system for standard points-based games that doesn't achieve the same effect.
I like the "Assassin Swap" idea for Aspects. Making it works means making the cost of Aspects all the same so that swapping one for the other si seamless. No, that doesn't mean that 10 Dark Reapers have the same cost as 10 Dire Avengers, but it means that units should have comparable points costs.
You could even factor this into the Strat itself - as this kind of rule is exactly what Stratagems should be (ie. the expenditure of an abstracted strategic resource to change the nature of your army, rather than dumb 'gotcha' strats like Transhuman or 'fight again' ones) - so it could be X CP to swap one unit for another, but if the unit is +X more expensive, then it costs X+Y CP, and so on.
PL is used in Matched Play as well, for Strategic Reserves and other little things, like Daemonic Summoning. It's not just for Crusade. Using it like this fits the design of the game that GW makes rather than an idealized version, anyways.
The stratagem idea also works well within the paradigm, I just think it's bad form to have this mechanic which is supposed to compensate for the Eldar Aspect Warrior thing not really functioning in the game in any meaningful way have a "high" price to it. If it costs too much CP to swap the Aspects in your list, it's not going to be worth it and you'll just bring the most generally useful Aspect (bad, imho).
In my opinion, the Eldar gameplay should be focused on three prongs.
The first one is heavily specialized and highly performant elite light and medium infantry in the form of Aspect Warriors. They should be extremely competent at their specific role, but each role should be highly defined with the sole exception of Dire Avengers who must be more multi-purpose. in short:
Dire Avengers: good against light infantry, but still capable against medium infantry thanks the their shuriken weapons. Just as good in close combat than in range.
Banshee: elite close combat unit specialized in de-buffing and fighting against other close combat specialists, extremely fast, fragile to shooting, but not extremely deadly on their own.
Scorpions: elite close combat unit specialized in killing swaths of chaff, but that can flex unto harder units though not against other dedicated close combat units. Well armored and benefits highly from fighting in cover.
Fire Dragons: anti-tank and super-heavy elite infantry. Very short range, relatively fast and reasonably armored.
Swooping Hawk: harassment unit that de-buffs enemy units (or buff allies via their shooting) that can inflict some damage against infantry, fastest of all Aspect Warriors. Can place some plink damage against vehicles with grenades.
Warp Spider: counter attack and counter charge short range units with massive deployment and redeployment abilities and a weapon that is good against all targets, but not great; mostly efficient against medium infantry and light vehicles. Well armored.
Shinning Spear: close combat specialist with powerful speed and charge designed to kill elite heavy infantry and light vehicles on the charge, but vulnerable to being immobilized or other similar units.
Dark Reaper: long range "hammer" unit designed to kill elite infantry and tanks at long range. reasonably armored, but slow by Eldar standards.
Eldar tanks should be fast, moderately armored and moderately armed, but precise and versatile unlike their infantry. They should be reasonably numerous. Transports are costly, but highly performant thanks to speed, good weapons, good defense and good transport capacity.
Eldar HQ should be focused mostly on buffing other units either via aura's and shenanigans or via psychic powers. They should not specialize as beatstick except Phoenix Lords and the Avatar of Khaine.
Guardians offer cheap support units of relatively poor quality made to hold objective and secure positions (or bodyguard HQ units in the case of Storm Guardians) while Wraith units offer slow, powerful Terminator equivalent to Eldars.
In the "wish list" section, I would call for a redesign of Swooping Hawk and Howling Banshees to make them proper de-buffers/harasser and counter-elite respectively. I would extand the range of shuriken catapult to 18 inches, give the option for shield dome to Guardian Defender. I would raise all Aspect Warriors to 3 attack base. I would improve Scorpion Chainswords ( 1 extra strength, attack and AP) and give Dire Avengers eldar swords (for an extra AP in close combat) and improve the AP of their shuriken catapult by 1. Bring melta weapons in line with others as well as the Bright Lance. Give all Exarch a close combat specialized equipment (fire swords/axe for Fire Dragons, blinding sword/spear for the Swooping Hawk, mini-maugetar for Dark Reapers) and keep their options for powers. Maybe even move the Wraithseer from ForgeWorld to regular GW.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Surely we can all agree that Guardians shouldn't have to enter charge range of everything in the game just to use their basic weaponry, right? 18" ShuriCats at the very least, right?
I'd argue for 24" since A: That's where they used to be. And B: Bolt Rifles are sitting at 30"
At 18" Shuricats are still markedly worse than Termagant Devourers.
Rihgu wrote: PL is used in Matched Play as well, for Strategic Reserves and other little things, like Daemonic Summoning. It's not just for Crusade. Using it like this fits the design of the game that GW makes rather than an idealized version, anyways.
The stratagem idea also works well within the paradigm, I just think it's bad form to have this mechanic which is supposed to compensate for the Eldar Aspect Warrior thing not really functioning in the game in any meaningful way have a "high" price to it. If it costs too much CP to swap the Aspects in your list, it's not going to be worth it and you'll just bring the most generally useful Aspect (bad, imho).
Just use reinforcement points instead of PL and all is well.
I've been working on my "own version" of the 40K universe for a while as a roleplaying setting and also for my wargames.
And when I was considering Eldar, I eventually made the decision to make Dark Eldar the faction I would add. That was because I already had Tau and Necrons as High Tech Xenos. Necrons fill a different role as robotic vs organic, so for the organic I think Tau models are cooler and the federation of aliens concept is better for an optimistic high tech alien culture. Gameplay wise, Tau are also very shooting orientated. The Eldar then work better as a decadent, old alien culture that is focused on cruelty and personal gratification, and in game terms is melee focused, for cultural reasons. Eldar as decadent, fallen corsairs just works better I think.
That said, the Craftworld Eldar concepts are really cool, and I love the visual design and the thought that went into them. But when I had to make a cut to the setting, they ended up being what I cut out.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Surely we can all agree that Guardians shouldn't have to enter charge range of everything in the game just to use their basic weaponry, right? 18" ShuriCats at the very least, right?
I'd argue for 24" since A: That's where they used to be. And B: Bolt Rifles are sitting at 30"
At 18" Shuricats are still markedly worse than Termagant Devourers.
So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.
There is apparently an unspoken commandment of 40K which needs to be removed:
"Thou shall not have a basic weapon in your wargear list that is more useful than that of the thrice-blessed, holy, imperial bolter/bolt rifle."
Afaik only the Tau have a vastly better basic gun than the Imperial bolter. Other factions may have a slight advantage over the bolter (e.g. Necron basic gun) but it pales in comparison to the Tau grunt rifle.
And just for the sake of the discussion: Tech-Levels of 40K:
A lot of ork technology is way beyond imperial understanding, even before it reaches large scale Waaagh! levels. For example tellyporta technology or big zzap-style weapons are a complete mystery to tech priests, even when they have acquired prototypes. On the flip side, orks have looted and repurposed or imitated pretty much everything the imperium has to offer.
It's also worth noting that while the imperium has a lot of technology that they don't understand anymore, so I'd firmly put them in the same catergory as orks.
It also seems like cawl's marine tech and admech should not be considered to be on the same level as IG or sisters.
The biggest problem is GW's misunderstanding of "synergy". Synergy should mean if you combine the units or interactions you get effects greater than merely the sum of their individual parts (that is the whole dictionary definition of synergy). Basically you get rewarded for taking the additional effort and the risk of things not working out and falling apart. Extra effort should equate to extra reward. 2+2 = 5
However historically often it seems GW has used that term to instead mean Craftworld Eldar units require babysitting to even do their intended role to a mediocre level. That's not synergy. That's an underpowered unit that is a liability if it requires the attention of another unit just to achieve average performance, since there is the cost of the other unit and also the opportunity cost of that other unit being unable to aid other units or do other things if it is babysitting. For example, Banshees shouldn't have to require a Farseer constantly Dooming their target in order to stand a chance of doing merely decent damage (if even that). 2+2 = 3 or 2+2+2 = 4
Historically the Craftworld Eldar lists over the editions have been plagued by the problem of overpowered units each edition combined with the other choices being underperforming. Why bother with a unit that requires much attention and everything fitting together right when instead you could spam the overpowered unit?
The issue with the 2+2=5 equation is that some nifty player will find out a way to make it 2+2+2+2+2+2 = 20, which is so much better than the baseline that it will just totally overpower the other side without much care for what happens if the synergy falls apart.
At this point I feel like so much of the eldar codex is just outright non-functional that simply lifting each datasheet to a level that would make it playable by itself should already create a great codex. That inherent synergy that is already there should take care of the rest.
A couple of months ago I started a thread about the traits of the most prominent 40K factions. According to that Eldar should play like this:
- Most mobile of all factions. This doesn´t only include fast vehicles but the ability to use warp tunnels and psi-powers to quickly relocate units on the table.
- Long range firepower. This suits a high-tech faction very well and was a trait for them in 2nd and in Epic. However GW trashed the Eldar since 3rd when they reduced shuriken catapults to 12´´ range.
- Emphasis on force shields rather than thick armour for protection.
- General aspect: Highly specialized army. They have aspect warriors for every combat role. Downside would be that Eldar can´t improvise. So if you don´t bring scorpions or banshees you will suck in cc.
- Small unit sizes. Goes well with the fluff of a dying race and the need to pay a lot of points for their exotic tech.
The above listed traits were watered down to some degree with the arrival of Tau and Dark Eldar which made zero sense gamewise but a lot of sense considering the sales driven ruleset of 40K. So now the game is burdened with three high-tech races which needlessly add to the faction bloat.
TBH i think "long range firepower" as an army trait will never, ever work on the new tiny board. "outranging" an enemy is meaningless. Space Marines and IG have range = board on basically all their stuff, you could make shuricats 48" range and it'd be a meaningless distinction.
Instead, I think the only way to achieve the "mobile, finesse-based" fantasy of eldar/harlequins is via some kind of post-attack movement paradigm. If you just hand them invulns but call them "dodgey-dodges" then you end up with the current frustratingly tanky setup harlequins have. The ONLY way to increase your defenses naturally using movement in 9e is to move yourself behind Obscuring or Dense cover, and even Dense is...basically meaningless.
So, that leaves us with move-shoot-move or move-attack-move as our option, and the obvious drawback is to stick with the limited range weaponry paradigm theyre currently on.
It could work. Probably would work even better if yu also allow eldar units to embark with their second move, so a wave serpent could facilitate one squad swapping out of the serpent and another squad swapping in.
Since when can GW force me on which type of board I play?
And another thing. A unit from the Scourge of DFC emits a specific force field which subtracts range to incoming shots which may then fall harmlessly to the ground. This kind of thing could be implemented for the Eldar as well to give one of their force fields a new function. Outgunning the enemy would then be possible without changing the opponent´s wargear.
It doesn't matter on which sort of board you play, because most likely the majority of players aren't playing on that same type of board. Tailoring an army to function on an 8x4 cityfight board is going to put them at a severe disadvantage in the reality of the game.
The Harlequins have that (They reduce range by 6" on guns fired at them with ... an ability or something, I forget).
The problem with that is it's either useless (yay, my battlecannon is only 66" of range rather than 72") or utterly overpowered (I can't even overwatch with flamers because you're charging from 7" away).
It's a feelbad moment for one player either way. And it works with fractions too - divide by 1/2 and you still get 36" (i.e. essentially the whole board) range battlecannons and 6" range flamers.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Surely we can all agree that Guardians shouldn't have to enter charge range of everything in the game just to use their basic weaponry, right? 18" ShuriCats at the very least, right?
I'd argue for 24" since A: That's where they used to be. And B: Bolt Rifles are sitting at 30"
At 18" Shuricats are still markedly worse than Termagant Devourers.
So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.
There is apparently an unspoken commandment of 40K which needs to be removed:
"Thou shall not have a basic weapon in your wargear list that is more useful than that of the thrice-blessed, holy, imperial bolter/bolt rifle."
Afaik only the Tau have a vastly better basic gun than the Imperial bolter. Other factions may have a slight advantage over the bolter (e.g. Necron basic gun) but it pales in comparison to the Tau grunt rifle.
And just for the sake of the discussion: Tech-Levels of 40K:
1. Eldar
2. Imperium
3.Orks
4. Tyranids
Agreed on most points, although I'd say firing twice at 24" and being an Assault weapon would be fine for Shuricats, and they wouldn't need to go up to 30".
The issue with Space Marines on the "basic weapon" front is their Docrines and Super Doctrines. Which, I don't really know how to address. The fact that UM Intercessors can move and fire twice at 30" AP -2 is just stupid. . . But I wouldn't really balance Shuricats in relation to that specifically.
I'll briefly give a mention to Deathspitters as an excellent basic weapon. Assault 3, 24", S5 AP-1. I think it's still the king of basic weapons.
Strg Alt wrote: So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable.
It's an enduring legacy of 3rd edition where marines had just the bolter (no pistol) and set restrictions on when and how it could be used, whereas the Eldar had two shots in every situation but only at 12".
I was a little surprised they didn't change it in 6th when they buffed everything else, by that point the slower strategic movement of the game was mostly gone and the concept of things like the old daemonhunters 'shooting from 13" away with a fixed 12" charge distance' was a thing of the past, as were things like the the run movement being exclusively an eldar trait.
'Balancing' based on interpretation of fluff alone is never a good idea though.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The Harlequins have that (They reduce range by 6" on guns fired at them with ... an ability or something, I forget).
The problem with that is it's either useless (yay, my battlecannon is only 66" of range rather than 72") or utterly overpowered (I can't even overwatch with flamers because you're charging from 7" away).
It's a feelbad moment for one player either way. And it works with fractions too - divide by 1/2 and you still get 36" (i.e. essentially the whole board) range battlecannons and 6" range flamers.
It wouldn´t be useless. Quite the opposite. Depending on how much range of the opposing guns is reduced mostly their heavy weapons could bring harm to the Eldar from turn one. In contrast to that the Eldar can unleash their whole firepower from a safe distance without endangering a single soldier. This would represent the Eldar´s superior firepower and force the opponent to reduce distance to them.
So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.
One of the issues with things like "X faction is high tech so their stats should be better" is that it can sometimes outright misrepresent to folks how the things work.
Eldar's technology being "high tech" doesn't necessarily mean it's always going to be the best.
Though I will agree that the Shuriken Catapult could use some more range. At least to 20 inches would be aces.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Surely we can all agree that Guardians shouldn't have to enter charge range of everything in the game just to use their basic weaponry, right? 18" ShuriCats at the very least, right?
I'd argue for 24" since A: That's where they used to be. And B: Bolt Rifles are sitting at 30"
At 18" Shuricats are still markedly worse than Termagant Devourers.
So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.
There is apparently an unspoken commandment of 40K which needs to be removed:
"Thou shall not have a basic weapon in your wargear list that is more useful than that of the thrice-blessed, holy, imperial bolter/bolt rifle."
Afaik only the Tau have a vastly better basic gun than the Imperial bolter. Other factions may have a slight advantage over the bolter (e.g. Necron basic gun) but it pales in comparison to the Tau grunt rifle.
And just for the sake of the discussion: Tech-Levels of 40K:
1. Eldar
2. Imperium
3.Orks
4. Tyranids
Agreed on most points, although I'd say firing twice at 24" and being an Assault weapon would be fine for Shuricats, and they wouldn't need to go up to 30".
The issue with Space Marines on the "basic weapon" front is their Docrines and Super Doctrines. Which, I don't really know how to address. The fact that UM Intercessors can move and fire twice at 30" AP -2 is just stupid. . . But I wouldn't really balance Shuricats in relation to that specifically.
I'll briefly give a mention to Deathspitters as an excellent basic weapon. Assault 3, 24", S5 AP-1. I think it's still the king of basic weapons.
I meant basic gun in the sense of being wielded by Core troops such as Imps, Boyz and Tacticals. Deathspitters are wielded by Tyranid Warriors which are an Elite choice.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The Harlequins have that (They reduce range by 6" on guns fired at them with ... an ability or something, I forget).
The problem with that is it's either useless (yay, my battlecannon is only 66" of range rather than 72") or utterly overpowered (I can't even overwatch with flamers because you're charging from 7" away).
It's a feelbad moment for one player either way. And it works with fractions too - divide by 1/2 and you still get 36" (i.e. essentially the whole board) range battlecannons and 6" range flamers.
It wouldn´t be useless. Quite the opposite. Depending on how much range of the opposing guns is reduced mostly their heavy weapons could bring harm to the Eldar from turn one. In contrast to that the Eldar can unleash their whole firepower from a safe distance without endangering a single soldier. This would represent the Eldar´s superior firepower and force the opponent to reduce distance to them.
I didn't say it would be useless (well, I did, but only as half my post and in the process of explaining the actual point that you missed); I said it inevitably results in a feelbad moment for one player either way.
Either it's useless against the majority of the enemy weapons and the eldar crumple like wet paper for their cost (Eldar player feels bad) or it hard counters the majority of the enemy army and they might as well not show up for all the efficacy of the weapons they've brought (other player feels bad).
It's also totally useless against Slaanesh Daemons, which I find hilariously ironic.
So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.
One of the issues with things like "X faction is high tech so their stats should be better" is that it can sometimes outright misrepresent to folks how the things work.
Eldar's technology being "high tech" doesn't necessarily mean it's always going to be the best.
Though I will agree that the Shuriken Catapult could use some more range. At least to 20 inches would be aces.
Being high-tech/elite has drawbacks and it doesn mean that your army will have an easy victory. Stalin´s famous quote comes to mind: "Quantity is a quality of it´s own." Therefore you will be often outnumbered because of costly wargear. This means suffering unnecessary casualties in the first turns will be the first step on the way of defeat whereas your run-of-the-mill Ork and Tyranid army would just shrug their shoulders and carry on. GW never stopped claiming that Eldar were the scalpel and most other factions operated more like sledgehammers. Suffice to say it´s a pretty blunt scalpel.
I meant basic gun in the sense of being wielded by Core troops such as Imps, Boyz and Tacticals. Deathspitters are wielded by Tyranid Warriors which are an Elite choice.
Tyranid Warriors are Troops. I know they used to be Elites, but they haven't been for some time now. As a bit of a lark I fielded an army of 80 or so of the things during 8th. Like an army of 80 Heavy Bolters, roughly.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The Harlequins have that (They reduce range by 6" on guns fired at them with ... an ability or something, I forget).
The problem with that is it's either useless (yay, my battlecannon is only 66" of range rather than 72") or utterly overpowered (I can't even overwatch with flamers because you're charging from 7" away).
It's a feelbad moment for one player either way. And it works with fractions too - divide by 1/2 and you still get 36" (i.e. essentially the whole board) range battlecannons and 6" range flamers.
It wouldn´t be useless. Quite the opposite. Depending on how much range of the opposing guns is reduced mostly their heavy weapons could bring harm to the Eldar from turn one. In contrast to that the Eldar can unleash their whole firepower from a safe distance without endangering a single soldier. This would represent the Eldar´s superior firepower and force the opponent to reduce distance to them.
I didn't say it would be useless (well, I did, but only as half my post and in the process of explaining the actual point that you missed); I said it inevitably results in a feelbad moment for one player either way.
Either it's useless against the majority of the enemy weapons and the eldar crumple like wet paper for their cost (Eldar player feels bad) or it hard counters the majority of the enemy army and they might as well not show up for all the efficacy of the weapons they've brought (other player feels bad).
It's also totally useless against Slaanesh Daemons, which I find hilariously ironic.
Why should a force field which protects against projectiles have an effect against clawed bull monsters? It´s just one tool of the Eldar´s arsenal.
About the Eldar crumpling due to high cost:
I played Epic in the 90s with Eldar. They had long range firepower and most units had less models than the opposing factions. You could perform very well with them, if you gave a thought or two what you were doing. That was their unique playstyle which rewarded careful thinking. Why wouldn´t this work in 40K? Maybe because of all the bad design decisions with which the Eldar were burdened since 3rd. Now they truly are a dying race.
I meant basic gun in the sense of being wielded by Core troops such as Imps, Boyz and Tacticals. Deathspitters are wielded by Tyranid Warriors which are an Elite choice.
Tyranid Warriors are Troops. I know they used to be Elites, but they haven't been for some time now. As a bit of a lark I fielded an army of 80 or so of the things during 8th. Like an army of 80 Heavy Bolters, roughly.
Eighty heavy bolters?! What fielded your opponent? 300 grots?
It actually started with Epic 40K when they threw out the old Epic 2nd edition rule system (bad idea). Most infantry had Firepower 1 and the equivalent of bolter range. They decided to give Eldar Firepower 2 and half the range, in the thought that this would make Eldar better at close range firefights but force them to use their mobility to get into range. At the time I think the comparison was made to the catapult being like a SMG. It didn't really work in Epic 40K, but they carried over the idea to 3rd edition 40K by halving the previously 24" catapult but giving them Assault 2.
Now maybe if the standard of measurement had been GEQ instead of MEQ, maybe it might have worked a bit better. However in 3rd edition's all or nothing AP system, one additional bolter equivalent S4 AP5 shot accomplished very little, and then with the increasing assault ranges the ludicrous situation came about of the enemy being able to charge further than the catapult could shoot.
GW tacitly admitted the range was an issue when they bumped the Avenger catapult to 18" but they have stubbornly still resisted truly admitting their mistake and adjusting the standard catapult.
I didn't read all the answer but I think they should not be looked at somewhat superior species.
They were, but considering their fall they are now just very outsider of the galaxy, who go to war only if absolutely necessary.
And once they do so, it's anxiety necessary (due to their few numbers) to do it in the right way.
So as well as harlequins and especially dark eldars should be, it's still a prerogative that the eldar player is better then his opponent. Kinda going in hard mode in a videogame.
Concretly, I think whatever have been said is right, fast, kinda tanky but not at marines level units that must be played for their porpouses.
And the point investment goes a lot more in movement/special rules that make them versatile then pure durability or damage.
A balanced codex thatoffers more the possibility to surprise yuor oppent then overpower units who break him. Like something that can be good versus two very different armies depending on the special rules it had.
I remember like 4 or 5 yers ago they were destroyng the game with their overpowered codex. That was so bad ahah.
Iracundus wrote: Just a bit of history on the whole 12" catapult:
It actually started with Epic 40K when they threw out the old Epic 2nd edition rule system (bad idea). Most infantry had Firepower 1 and the equivalent of bolter range. They decided to give Eldar Firepower 2 and half the range, in the thought that this would make Eldar better at close range firefights but force them to use their mobility to get into range. At the time I think the comparison was made to the catapult being like a SMG. It didn't really work in Epic 40K, but they carried over the idea to 3rd edition 40K by halving the previously 24" catapult but giving them Assault 2.
Now maybe if the standard of measurement had been GEQ instead of MEQ, maybe it might have worked a bit better. However in 3rd edition's all or nothing AP system, one additional bolter equivalent S4 AP5 shot accomplished very little, and then with the increasing assault ranges the ludicrous situation came about of the enemy being able to charge further than the catapult could shoot.
GW tacitly admitted the range was an issue when they bumped the Avenger catapult to 18" but they have stubbornly still resisted truly admitting their mistake and adjusting the standard catapult.
I'd say that the 12" Catapult was okaay in 3rd when Bolters could only fire twice when standing still, and couldn't Assault. Guardians being able to Move, Shoot and the Assault made for a pretty dynamic difference between the two.
Now, the fact that stupid Blood Angels could make a 30" charge in 3rd is it's own horrible problem.
But yes, I love going back to 2nd ed and having Guardians and Dire Avengers actually trade shots meaningfully with Marines at 24". It feels like an actual firefight at times.
If you go by lore, an eldar force should, if it sees success is impossible at a certain point, immediately withdraw since there is no gain for any additional deaths among a dwindling population.
of course in 40k that's generally not considered good sportsmanship.
I have found in this edition, besides the obvious challenges of an old Codex, that the smaller sized boards have reduced my ability to keep out of reach of fast melee units. The incredible amount of damage that many units can unleash in a single round of shooting is something else that really impacts my units. In previous editions the multiple modifiers to hit would let me survive that maelstrom...if that is off the table, then better armor saves and better ranged Shurikens would help.
Perhaps the ability to react to enemy shooting? Take a LD test after the enemy resolves a unit's shooting and if you pass you can make a move action in any direction that leaves you further away from the enemy. Same with combat. Possibly incurring a to hit buff to yourself next turn to represent them hoofing it as fast as they can. (and balance of course)
The Revenant wrote: If you go by lore, an eldar force should, if it sees success is impossible at a certain point, immediately withdraw since there is no gain for any additional deaths among a dwindling population.
of course in 40k that's generally not considered good sportsmanship.
Didn't BFG sort of represent this? Something along the lines of eldar ships being allowed to run away mid-battle? So you could rack up victory points by doing damage in the early turns, then run away to prevent your opponent from gaining VP for destroying your ships? That doesn't translate into 40k very well, but it does seem very thematic.
Here's a probably terrible idea:
Let eldar near board edges go into strategic reserves to pop up anywhere along that same board edge on the following turn. The idea being that they're fast and stealthy enough to break off from the main assault and harass the enemy flanks. Really lean into the idea that they're working the edges trickily rather than diving headlong into the middle of the table. Probably doesn't work in a 5 turn game that puts as much emphasis as 40k does on standing on primary objectives though.
So far no one disagreed with the notion of Eldar being high-tech. Upgrading shuriken catapults to 18´´ while Imperials having access to 30´´ basic gun weaponry isn´t acceptable. You either give shuriken catapults then a range above 30´´ or change bolters and those fancy bolt rifles to be worse than shuriken catapults. If you don´t do this Eldar are no longer a high-tech race regardless of what GW may claim in their fluff.
While I'm not opposed to catapults gaining some range, I kind of don't want them to become 30"+ just for the heck of it. Eldar tech is all kinds of nifty, but shuriken catapults are like a more lethal version of those toy guns that shoot foam discs. Even allowing for advanced tech to straighten out the trajectory of a disc-shaped projectile and give it enough force to be dangerous, catapults just don't seem like they should be approaching sniper rifle levels of range. In video game terms, it seems like they should feel closer to a machinegun style weapon than a rifle. Like, I could almost see shurikens behaving more like flamer weapons, filling a nearby cone of space with projectiles to the point that missing is impossible; but that's probably impractical for a basic weapon.
The Revenant wrote: If you go by lore, an eldar force should, if it sees success is impossible at a certain point, immediately withdraw since there is no gain for any additional deaths among a dwindling population.
of course in 40k that's generally not considered good sportsmanship.
Didn't BFG sort of represent this? Something along the lines of eldar ships being allowed to run away mid-battle? So you could rack up victory points by doing damage in the early turns, then run away to prevent your opponent from gaining VP for destroying your ships? That doesn't translate into 40k very well, but it does seem very thematic.
All ships in BFG could disengage. Most "historical" engagements actually seem to have ended with one side or the other disengaging rather than fighting to the death/destruction of a capital ship. In terms of VP, capturing a ship > destroying ship but capturing the hulk > destroying a ship > enemy ship disengaging.
What you are thinking of was the Necron VP system which was not very satisfying. The Necron ships were overpowered but attempts at balancing their gameplay were not entirely effective so one final attempt was to make them worth more VP to induce them to disengage before their ships got crippled or destroyed. However this wasn't very satisfying from a psychological perspective if the Necron player did not care about VPs or gamed the system in campaign mode by going for destroying the enemy fleet. The Necron player might then take enough damage to lose by VP but literally wipe out the enemy fleet. For pick up games, it was not very satisfying for the non-Necron player to "win" this way, with their fleet wiped off the board, nor for the Necron player to "lose" despite this. In campaign mode, the Necron player could gain the advantage this way at the price of a few initial "lost" games as destroyed enemy ships would be replaced with fresh ships with low LD, which put the non-Necron player at a disadvantage for the rest of the campaign.
Pretty sure that in BFG your whole fleet had to disengage. Your opponent would then gain half VPs for each Chickenship, so it wasn’t something to be done lightly?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Pretty sure that in BFG your whole fleet had to disengage. Your opponent would then gain half VPs for each Chickenship, so it wasn’t something to be done lightly?
No, it was individual ships. I am looking at the BFG rulebook right now. Pass LD check subject to some modifiers. If crippled and disengaged, worth 25% of point value in VP to opponent. If not crippled, worth 10%. A destroyed ship was worth 100% of its point value.
The Necron VP table was 10% for disengaging with no damage whatsever, 25% for disengaging, 50% for being crippled, 200% for being destroyed, 300% if destroyed and left as a drifting hulk.
The problem though as I wrote in the previous post was that a Necron player could choose to ignore the VPs, not care about sustaining damage, and wipe the enemy off the table. The enemy might "win" on VPs but it was not psychologically/emotionally satisfying to "win" just because you inflicted some scratches on the Necron ships but got wiped in return. In campaign mode, a few such Pyrrhic "wins" would lead to crippling LD handicap for the non-Necron player as fresh ship replacements for destroyed ships started at a lower LD.
To me, Guardians need to be there to create danger zones for the enemy, whilst the Aspects and that do the real heavy hitting. Stuff like camping on Objectives, or creating zones of quite horrendous firepower.
12” just….doesn’t do that. At all. Especially in a game where the assault range has increased from 12”.
18” seems a bare minimum in that world. Enough that they’re generally out of charge range, whilst being useful enough to pull back to a longer range and still pour it on.
24” does seem better. Yes, Guardian squads with that range can kick out decent levels of reasonably accurate better than average firepower, but still fold like a cheap suit to any truly determined attack/attempt to deal with them. At least, without support from Warlocks etc.
But hey, how about a 20” range? After all, we’re not restricted to increments of 6”. Whilst comparatively short range still, it’s still a more useful and impactful one, and requires some suitably extra skill on the player to make the most of it,
That should see Guardians able to, well, guard things. Couple up with the much needed “actually rather dangerous” Aspect Warriors, and you end up with a force which requires some finesse and knowledge to get the absolute most out of, without demanding the same.
A well player Eldar army should be mobile enough to redress their line, creating new and interesting danger zones turn to turn. And that begins with giving Guardians range worth a damn,
Eldar Guardians date from when the standard of measurement was intended to be the Imperial Guardsman. Just like in WHFB, where Elves were basically Humans+1, Eldar Guardians were originally Imperial Guard+1, with better characteristics and equipment. However they do poorly in the MEQ environment, and serve little more than ablative wounds for their weapons platform. That's the problem when they are thematically meant to be from an endangered race that tries to avoid losses.
I feel guardians should get 24 so they can trade sufficiently with other infantry of similar type. Outclassed by more specialised infantry, and dire avengers being both faster and more deadly when within the 12 inch range to give them a difference.
Right now I don’t think there is enough battlefield for the whole army to be dynamic like that. And if they get a move shoot move it will mostly just be to move into range, shoot then move back out for guardians at this point.
Better to use that time on more dynamic units that can utilise it more interestingly.
The decrease of the board size is fundamentally wrong. Aforementioned aspects of mobility and outmaneuvering an opponent, a key trait of the Eldar, is not possible. Obviously the intention is to further dumb down the game as it will be even more easier to end a match at turn 3. Sounds like shooting fish in a barrel.
While I agree that the fanatical adherence to the recommended board size is crazy, it’s disingenuous to put that much blame on it. In the days old you could turbo boosting a jet bike squad halfway across the board onto an objective that only scores on the final turn. That wasn’t entertaining to play against. Now the rules require commitment to objectives instead of just running on at the end. The important objectives tend to be in the middle as well forcing you to maneuver there. Eldar mobility is less important because victory doesn’t depend as much on holding the objectives at the end.
I’d like to see some of the redeployment shenanigans that the thousand sons, ultramarines, and alpha legion get. Guardians should get a 4+ save and most aspect armor should get a +1 save across the board. -1 damage for the wraithlord and wraith guard seem reasonable too. I’m hesitant to put it on the wraithknight though. The grey knight ability to recast certain spells at additional cost seems good for an inherently psychic army. Close combat definitely needs a buff. Units like banshees should get the option for sweep and heavy strike attacks to let them chew threw any of the basic infantry. The attacks should be at S4 1D for the sweep and S5 2D for the heavier blows. I don’t think it would be crazy to make aspects obsec either.
With today’s rules though move shoot move should be heavily curtailed. A lot of terrain turns line of sight on and off by touching it. An entire army creating schrodinger’s LOS doesn’t sound like a fun mechanic to play.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: While I agree that the fanatical adherence to the recommended board size is crazy, it’s disingenuous to put that much blame on it. In the days old you could turbo boosting a jet bike squad halfway across the board onto an objective that only scores on the final turn. That wasn’t entertaining to play against.
Yeah but they couldn't charge or shoot after moving such a speed, meaning their turn was spent doing nothing but moving. Also basic weapons (hi Bolt Rifles) couldn't shoot across the table. And those that had extreme range (Pulse Rifles) couldn't shoot twice a turn at that range.
Insectum7 wrote: Yeah but they couldn't charge or shoot after moving such a speed, meaning their turn was spent doing nothing but moving.
Last turns of sieze and capture games against Eldar in 5th ed could get hairy with their 36" move skimmers on top of their bikes, though random game length and the relatively low power of the faction at the time prevented them from ever dominating with it.
In an odd way it almost worked as a thematic eldar codex - run circles around the opponent, redeployment shenanigans, a significant psychic presence... and not nearly enough bodies or firepower to trade out against most armies in a head-on exchange. Couldn't hold against the power creep though.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: While I agree that the fanatical adherence to the recommended board size is crazy, it’s disingenuous to put that much blame on it. In the days old you could turbo boosting a jet bike squad halfway across the board onto an objective that only scores on the final turn. That wasn’t entertaining to play against. Now the rules require commitment to objectives instead of just running on at the end. The important objectives tend to be in the middle as well forcing you to maneuver there. Eldar mobility is less important because victory doesn’t depend as much on holding the objectives at the end.
I'm not sure anyone is really pushing for last-minute rushes onto objectives. But as others have pointed out, the current board size combined with primary objectives makes eldar mobility hard to represent in a useful fashion. I kind of miss luring opponents into splitting their forces up into smaller groups so that I could relocate my whole army around one group and focus it down while remaining safely out of threat range of the other groups. Right now, moving far enough away from a group of enemies to be out of their range generally means avoiding the primary objectives and thus losing the game. And that's assuming your opponent doesn't have the speed and range to to prevent you from running away from them in the first place.
I'm a little bit nervous about how they'll handle craftworlders in the next codex. They basically just made drukhari so cost-effective that they could win a straight up firefight with other armies, and I feel drukhari lost a bit of character as a result. I'm hoping they manage to keep the personality of craftworlders intact.
I'm not entirely sure anymore. When I fought against Eldar in 5th ed they felt more like they were in Dawn of War and the various other media I consumed when I was younger.
1) Firstly, I think Aspect Warrior's should have 2 wounds, and weapons should be retooled, off the top of my head I'd want Banshee swords to be akin to a Nemesis or Master Crafted powersword, one direct blow would should be enough to kill a Primaris Marine dead, I also think Fire Dragons should be able to be toe to toe or even surpass Eradicator's.
2) I really -really- liked the flavour of our strategems in 8th. I dunno what I would work there, but mechanics to make the Eldar trickier to hurt rather then just flat out tougher would be implemented.
3) A lot of the units in the current book are either *Must takes* or at best 'meh' at worst 'bad' I'd want to bring everyone up to a competent field.
4) I -really- think Eldar, as a species so concerned with it's population should have some kind of Aspect healer. Maybe something like a Farseer but with regenerative magics like Lore of Life from Oldhammer?
Eldar armies have speed and firepower, but less durability than other armies.
The slogan ''Speed is your armor'' is no longer correct as Serpents, Falcons and Co. do no longer get a bonus on having moved.
wuestenfux wrote: Eldar armies have speed and firepower, but less durability than other armies.
The slogan ''Speed is your armor'' is no longer correct as Serpents, Falcons and Co. do no longer get a bonus on having moved.
It doesn't seem to be a far stretch to give them the same "jink" ability that ravenwing and speed freeks got.
Always kind of suspect on "Eldar should have less durability" - "Looks at Wave Serpent in most editions" - "Okay carry on then."
If for example they ended up as a T7/3+/-1 damage with 13 wounds - and lets say a 5++ thrown on top as a "speed dodge bonus" plus some sort of defensive chapter tactic bonus its not really in any sense fragile. With potentially 3 good guns (inevitably going to be buffed) this thing either ends up ludicrously expensive or rather broken.
Not really sure on Guardians. I don't like just making them 24" range - because its not interesting. Unfortunately Dire Avengers are explicitly Guardians+1, so which one you take is almost always just a function of points.
I don't know if it's in this thread or another, but I've mentioned that Guardians really need a warlock sgt to boost the squad in various ways to make them playable. Downside is that the kit doesn't come with this upgrade so will not likely be a path utilized. It would be so easy though to allow Warlocks to give a buff in the command phase which could either be offensive or defensive in nature. Defense would replace Conceal and just give the squad both -1 to hit and count as in light cover. Offensive boost would increase range and ROF of shuricats (18" Assault 3).
Aspects just need to be able to do what they should do really well, and that's it. In 9th, if priced appropriately they should then be able to "trade" well with opponents. banshees wreck power armour, dragons melt armour, etc. can't improve their resilience, that's just not their stick. I could see a JSJ approach with warp spiders though.
Jidmah wrote: That profile is not too different from a PBC, so there should be a way to make it work if priced properly.
I guess that is one way of looking at it.
Its probably not impossible to balance. I'm not sure it will feel fragile though - although ymmv on how well PBCs hold up. I used to think it was a really good package, but less sure these days.
Tyel wrote: Always kind of suspect on "Eldar should have less durability" - "Looks at Wave Serpent in most editions" - "Okay carry on then."
If for example they ended up as a T7/3+/-1 damage with 13 wounds - and lets say a 5++ thrown on top as a "speed dodge bonus" plus some sort of defensive chapter tactic bonus its not really in any sense fragile. With potentially 3 good guns (inevitably going to be buffed) this thing either ends up ludicrously expensive or rather broken.
Not really sure on Guardians. I don't like just making them 24" range - because its not interesting. Unfortunately Dire Avengers are explicitly Guardians+1, so which one you take is almost always just a function of points.
You leave Guardians with that rotten gun and they will behave worse than cavemen (Orks). Ah, what an epitome of a high-tech race. Might as well squat the faction as GW doesn´t know how to handle them just like the Squats in the 90s.
Strg Alt wrote: You leave Guardians with that rotten gun and they will behave worse than cavemen (Orks). Ah, what an epitome of a high-tech race. Might as well squat the faction as GW doesn´t know how to handle them just like the Squats in the 90s.
Its not a rotten gun though. Its better than a boltgun.
You can say "not so - my sisters of battle get to plink away from 24" away".
Sure - but they mathematically do essentially nothing if they do.
You want to be in half range for double shots, and now by comparison a good portion of those from the Guardians that wound are at AP-3 rather than -. Especially when you break out say doom. If the humble Shuriken Catapult gets a base -1 AP because GW just like dolling that out for laughs these days, its dramatically better than a bolter.
Maybe up it to 15" because its a 9th edition right that every unit should be able to shoot anything they want unless its behind a block of polystyrene.
been playing ye olde space elves since 5th, my mian army has been orks btu they are my 2nd most played army. The thing that attracted me to the army is what they now lack. There were all kinds of eldar shenanagins to be played in the 4th edition book. Every unit was bordeline broken at oen thing and not necessarily very useful for something else. Dark reapers were the bane of space marines with thier AP3 str 5 shots but against hordes they removed models but not enough. fire dragons deleted whatever vehicle you pointed them at... but due to being so short range you needed to be abel to deal with what was inside elsewhere. So unless you did things in the right order and planned correctly the whole thing fell apart. it was a high skill floor army that rewarded intelligent play. in 6th and 7th it was an overpowered mess, and then now they are paying for it with a weak all over the place kind of generic book.
cody.d. wrote: Perhaps the ability to react to enemy shooting? Take a LD test after the enemy resolves a unit's shooting and if you pass you can make a move action in any direction that leaves you further away from the enemy. Same with combat. Possibly incurring a to hit buff to yourself next turn to represent them hoofing it as fast as they can. (and balance of course)
Woah, slow down there, we don't actually use LD in 40k anymore.
This is actually a really good idea and i'd like to see it being used more, heck. I'd even be down for Actions to require a LD test to pass (forcing you to commit multiple units to achieve secondaries)
cody.d. wrote: Perhaps the ability to react to enemy shooting? Take a LD test after the enemy resolves a unit's shooting and if you pass you can make a move action in any direction that leaves you further away from the enemy. Same with combat. Possibly incurring a to hit buff to yourself next turn to represent them hoofing it as fast as they can. (and balance of course)
Woah, slow down there, we don't actually use LD in 40k anymore.
This is actually a really good idea and i'd like to see it being used more, heck. I'd even be down for Actions to require a LD test to pass (forcing you to commit multiple units to achieve secondaries)
If there's one thing I've learned from discussions re: target priority tests and other leadership checks in old editions, it's that players tend to view those tests as mechanics where failing a Ld check renders them unable to do something they took for granted, rather than passing a Ld check allowing them to do something special.
I would expect the initial excitement over a Ld-based reaction system to swiftly turn into grumbling about how you fail an arbitrary dice roll and then your unit sits there doing nothing, and wouldn't it be so much better if everyone could just react automatically or complete actions automatically.
(For what it's worth, I personally like the idea of more things tied to Ld, and using Ld to mediate reactions seems like a good compromise on friction- you have full control over your army in your turn, but the ability to instantly react to the enemy on their turn is less guaranteed)
Strg Alt wrote: You leave Guardians with that rotten gun and they will behave worse than cavemen (Orks). Ah, what an epitome of a high-tech race. Might as well squat the faction as GW doesn´t know how to handle them just like the Squats in the 90s.
Its not a rotten gun though. Its better than a boltgun.
You can say "not so - my sisters of battle get to plink away from 24" away".
Sure - but they mathematically do essentially nothing if they do.
You want to be in half range for double shots, and now by comparison a good portion of those from the Guardians that wound are at AP-3 rather than -. Especially when you break out say doom. If the humble Shuriken Catapult gets a base -1 AP because GW just like dolling that out for laughs these days, its dramatically better than a bolter.
Maybe up it to 15" because its a 9th edition right that every unit should be able to shoot anything they want unless its behind a block of polystyrene.
Kind of weird comparing the shuripult to the one faction that uses massed bolters that doesn't get to doubleshoot at long range with them. Also primaris are a thing, the default/benchmark troop bolter-ish gun is now 30" and has an ap value of -1 or even -2. Also you're throwing in your once per turn casting of doom instead of using it on something more important, and assuming it is a succesful cast, and not denied, and not giving the bolter wielders any equivalently limited and expensive buff. I feel like you're overselling the ap3 while underselling the majority of ap0 shots. What am I even supposed to target with a gun that's sometimes ap3 but mostly ap0? You're also calling the shooting sisters do at 12-24" range essentially nothing; you know who truely does nothing at that range? That's right, it's the guardians. This doesn't feel like a fair comparison.
Ignoring all that I'd still prefer a 24" gun without ap to the one guardians get. Why? The extra range allows you to more easily claim cover to shoot from and allows you to shoot who you want instead of who is in range. In my experience getting the squad in 12" means:
- you have to get within 12" of your desired target
- your opponent has to let you get there (esp. true when deep striking)
- you have to get there in one piece
Say you manage to do all three:
- you're now in charge range, likely from more than one unit
- you're now in rapid fire range of said units
- you're unlikely to be both within range and within cover; how many unoccupied pieces of cover are there usually within 12" of your targets? This gets worse when you take a full 20 elf squad
- even getting all your elves in range of your target is not guaranteed, 12" is not that much
These points can be mitigated by spamming strats and/or psychic powers to deep strike and to keep them breathing for an extra turn, but then they're toast anyway. This also limits you in list building as you can only deploy/keep a single squad alive like this each turn. And given what you're investing at this point you have to wonder if there aren't any other units that can do a similar job for less.
Optional bullet point:
- lorewise you feel like the absolute worst eldar commander ever for not giving frikkin lasblasters to your precious citizen militia of a race facing extinction. Hell, from this angle even taking lasguns would be a good trade. It's downright asinine, and I haven't even gotten to their armor yet.
Edit: I apparently am still butthurt about the shuricat vs bolter discussion
leadership tests might be one underutilized mechanic to represent eldar superiority in movement and coordination perhaps via farsighted farseers and so on.
Wyldhunt wrote: Between the rumor engine pics and the lack of attention from today's points adjustments, I find myself cautiously hoping that craftworlders might be in for a complete overhaul next year. Which got me thinking: how should a craftworld army actually behave on the table?
For years, I've heard people say that they should be glass cannons, but that feels a bit weird for a technologically advanced species that puts a lot of value on the lives of their remaining population. Plus, other space elves are already doing the glass cannon thing, and making them all compete for that same role means that you're likely to make at least one faction basically worse at the job than the others. Some people say they're meant to be a mobile, shooty army, but that's theoretically the tau niche. When I first started playing, they were an elite force equipped with more-powerful-than-normal wargear that made them specialists with an edge over their counterparts... But primaris marines are kind of filling that niche now, and it feels inappropriate to one-up marines at the "individually powerful" game by making eldar tech absurdly strong.
So how, in the abstract, should a craftworld army behave? How should their future playstyle be described?
Personally, I'd be inclined to make them a fast, tanky army that gets defensive bonuses when they move quickly. Aspect warriors should probably have comparable offensive output to primaris marines, but less durability once they stop moving and start shooting/stabbing.
My take on this topic.
They're an army that should be composed of specialists that work together in sequence to accomplish specific tasks and that should need to take a wide variety of units to be successful. Eldar should have lots of utility and abilities that require units to work together, without specific units being insanely outstanding on their own in terms of killing power or resiliency. They should not be an army where taking multiples of the same heavy weapons platform or big beatstick unit armed with generalist weapons are paths to success. They're an army that should rely on speed and positioning over raw resiliency for defense, not to the point of being completely without armor like DE, but they shouldn't be particularly durable or hardy. What they should be is difficult to engage on favorable terms. If they're taking lots of fire that armor would mitigate, it should mean the Eldar player messed up to begin with (all other things being equal and ideal).
Likewise, it should emphasize not only the specialist Aspect cults, but also the citizen-soldier nature of the force, as Guardians crew most vehicles and heavy weapons, and that's something I feel has been somewhat under-represented, especially since the shift to just making all space-elves hit on 3's in 6E removed the primary existing gameplay distinction, but I think finding better ways for them to provide utility through their experience in civilian paths could be neat (e.g. artisans constructing field fortifications).
Unfortunately in the past Eldar have not quite fit this. We've had Hovertanks that were harder to kill and hurt than Russ tanks or Land Raiders, we've had armies composed of massed long range mobile S6 spam, Wraithknight godzilla lists, 2++ rerollable psyker deathstars, etc, and there's been units that have spent several editions or even a couple decades as largely dead weight or grossly underpowered like Vypers and Guardians.
bullyboy wrote: In 9th, if priced appropriately they should then be able to "trade" well with opponents. banshees wreck power armour, dragons melt armour, etc. can't improve their resilience, that's just not their stick. I could see a JSJ approach with warp spiders though.
Kind of seems like resilience should be their shtick though, right? Like, of all the factions in 40k, craftworlders are the ones who define themselves by their dwindling numbers and desire to keep each other alive. Even Tau are more okay with losing some dudes than craftworlders are. Combine that with their canonical speed, holofields, force-fields, banshee masks, etc., and it kind of seems like eldar should be a tanky army; just not an army that is tanky by virtue of their armor saves or toughness stats.
Regarding guardians:
I still think one of the better simpler fixes would be to just lower their minimum squad size to 5 and let them take one heavy weapon per 5 bodies. A lot of our ranged heavy weapon platforms are good for their points but also expensive. Something like a trio of war walkers is a good buy, but they also become a big fire magnet that your opponent probably won't struggle to kill in a single turn. Wave serpents are great but also cost upwards of 200 points so you have to build your list around them. Being able to sprinkle a few bright lances through my army on squads cheap and small enough to be expendable and also unlikely to draw fire would do a lot for my army.
Honestly, 5 guys plus a gun sounds great. 20 guys deepstriking is currently a decent option but something you have to build around. 15 dudes with 3 platforms sounds decent. It's just the default 10 guys with 1 platform that makes them really lacklustre. Too expensive to be a cost-effective source of heavy weapons. Too big and squishy to be comfortable foot slogging. Too many shuriken catapults to not bump up against avengers.
On a sort of related note, I feel like fire dragons themselves aren't terrible right now. I wouldn't turn up my nose at a buff, but the biggest problem I have with dragons is just their delivery system. If you deepstrike them or have them outflank, you end up out of range for their fusion guns' special rule and you die the turn after you arrive. If you put them in a wave serpent, you're driving ~300 points straight at the enemy's big guns. And if you take enough dragons to semi-reliably take out a big target in a single turn, that pricetag goes even higher.
I don't want craftworlders to have a venom/star weaver type transport, but dragons would be pretty solid if they had one. And not just because of the open-topped rule; a transport that costs half as much as a serpent would just make the overall package that much more cost effective.
For years, I've heard people say that they should be glass cannons, but that feels a bit weird for a technologically advanced species that puts a lot of value on the lives of their remaining population. Plus, other space elves are already doing the glass cannon thing, and making them all compete for that same role means that you're likely to make at least one faction basically worse at the job than the others. Some people say they're meant to be a mobile, shooty army, but that's theoretically the tau niche. When I first started playing, they were an elite force equipped with more-powerful-than-normal wargear that made them specialists with an edge over their counterparts... But primaris marines are kind of filling that niche now, and it feels inappropriate to one-up marines at the "individually powerful" game by making eldar tech absurdly strong.
Honestly, I think in many ways, this is the crux of the issue with Eldar. The Eldar haven't ever had a proper overhaul pretty much since they were released, and their niche's have been slowly taken by other factions. In addition to the ones mentioned, the Necrons have taken the "hyper-advanced race" niche, and chaos/marines have taken the pshycic race niche (sort of, the Thousand sons deserve it moreso than the others and Eldar have decent psychic still).
I think at this point, I see two ways forward. Shenanigans, allowing them certain tricks and abilities no one else can do (though this risks encroaching upon GSC).
Or, and this is my preferred idea, pre-battle divination and preperation. Personally, I'd do it like so:
Pre battle you get X amount of army structures to build the army around, which heavily push you down a given route and the idea is to represent pre-battle divination of the eldar, the seeing they do before they ever even engage. Then, when you begin the fight, you pick one of X amount of minor upgrades to represent a tailoring to a specific battle. I.E. -1AP on Shuriken weapons, +1S on Shuriken weapons, or +6"range to Shuriken weapons. Perhaps it's one flat bonus to everything, or it's several bonuses to specific units. If I had complete control of warhammer I'd just allow every unit a minor upgrade, but very under-powered if you don't pick
As others have kinda discussed already, there just isn't that much design space for the Eldar to take advantage of. Many armies are already blitzingly fast, carry powerful psychic phases, and run specialized squads that it feels difficult to give them an identity.
A bit of design space that has not yet been exploited is minor list tailoring, which makes the most sense with the prescient and farsighted Eldar. An implementation would be doable, but difficult.
A couple stabs at this vein of thinking -
1) Warlord bonuses. If the warlord is a Farseer/Warlock/Autarch they give the following bonuses.
- Farseer. The opposing player must choose and reveal their first secondary objective before the player controlling this model chooses any. Unlocks Strat to spend 1/2CP to force the opponent to also reveal their second/third secondary objectives. If both players have farseers as warlords then neither
may benefit from this ability
- Autarch. The player may choose to activate an Aspect for an additional battle round.
- Warlock. The player may choose to swap out one power on each psyker in their army.
Then follow it up by allowing the Eldar to shift warlords as long as they are in the army. This could be messy to implement, but I'd run it as a strategem that made another character the warlord for that game. It wouldn't give them a WLT though.
Basically by adding these your allowing the player to have a strategic level tailor to the army they're fighting.
2) Aspects. Aspects would make up the "Doctrine" level army wide rules that one can get only if their entire army is CWE. The player would choose to activate an Aspect at the start of the round. Each aspect would have a major and a minor benefit. An Aspect can only be activated once
- Major benefits would only affect those of that aspect (IE banshees would get a major benefit during the battle round with the aspect of the banshee active)
- Minor benefits would only affect models like guardians and warwalkers or other CWE 'militia'
- Aspect warriors from other shrines would gain no benefit.
I don't know what each aspect would actually do, but I feel this would encourage players to use a gamut of specialized infantry with guardians acting as a sort of glue for the entire army. At least that would be the hope. This would probably necessitate the expansion of aspects to somehow include vehicles and wraith units, but that might be disagreeable to some.
3)Webway Portalling. Allow the Eldar player to switch out units during the game. I feel there are two ways to do this:
- Modified Summoning: Give Eldar character summoning rules that allow them to summon aspect warriors/guardians from a reinforcement point pool. Maybe with a slight tweak to better increase mobility
- Unit Swapping: Let the Eldar spend CP to pull an infantry unit that is unengaged and replace them with a new unit of equal/lesser cost and equal lesser/models as they retreat into a webway portal and trade places with reinforcements more appropriately matched to the task. This would still be subject to the 9" deepstrike denial.
4) Alongside these changes would be making each aspect focus on a specific profile or task.
For example, instead of making banshees be melee blenders make them melee disruptors.
- Change Banshee masks to the following - 'At the start of the fight phase a unit equipped with a banshee mask may target a single unit within engagement range. Roll 2d6, and if the amount equals or exceeds their leadership that unit may not benefit from any abilities that grant them obsec. In addition when determining who controls an objective that unit counts as half as many models as it normally would (rounding up) and any actions they are performing automatically fail. This effect lasts until the end of the next fight phase. A unit may not be targeted by more than one Banshee mask per phase.
I don't know how well this would play out in practice, but it makes banshees terrifying in certain matchups without being outright killy. (although they should still hit reasonable hard as well)
Basically changes 2-4 are focused on rewarding the player for specializing their troops, while mitigating the feels bad of showing up to a game with all the wrong models and autolosing. Give them an interesting tool kit that they can use, but require the right tool for the job.
I disagree with some of these ideas of making Craftworld units not able to do a decent job unless supported by other units/stratagems/psychic powers. That is the same mistake GW has made before. That is not synergy. That is under powering units and kneecapping the faction if units need babysitting or an inordinate amount of attention from the player just to do the job they are supposedly specialized in. Seriously, I don’t seem to see other people suggest melee specialized elite units from other factions be not killy in melee, yet this pops up for Banshees or even Scorpions. Is it too much to expect an Eldar unit do its role?
Nutshell: if you have to do more just to get the same result as others, that means you were playing with a handicap/disadvantage/weak unit.
ProfSrlojohn wrote:The Eldar haven't ever had a proper overhaul pretty much since they were released, and their niche's have been slowly taken by other factions.
Yeah. It almost feels like we've, in a roundabout way, traded the "fast specialists" gimmick for marines' "Mario army" niche. Marines can field squads full of special weapons that excel against specific targets or at specific jobs, can hope out of transports after they've moved, and can launch turn 1 charges with their faster units. Meanwhile eldar are fast but not *that* fast, can generally take a mix of weapons on a given unit that are good against a variety of targets, are well-armored but not *that* well-armored... Craftworlders almost seem like the xenos measuring post at the moment; not skewing far enough into any gimmick to really be considered "the fast ones," or "the glass cannons," or "the horde," or "the elite army."
I think at this point, I see two ways forward. Shenanigans, allowing them certain tricks and abilities no one else can do (though this risks encroaching upon GSC).
Or, and this is my preferred idea, pre-battle divination and preperation. Personally, I'd do it like so:
Pre battle you get X amount of army structures to build the army around, which heavily push you down a given route and the idea is to represent pre-battle divination of the eldar, the seeing they do before they ever even engage. Then, when you begin the fight, you pick one of X amount of minor upgrades to represent a tailoring to a specific battle. I.E. -1AP on Shuriken weapons, +1S on Shuriken weapons, or +6"range to Shuriken weapons. Perhaps it's one flat bonus to everything, or it's several bonuses to specific units. If I had complete control of warhammer I'd just allow every unit a minor upgrade, but very under-powered if you don't pick
I think either of those approaches could be workable. One or two army-wide buffs chosen at the time the battle starts representing a battle plan made with foreknowledge of the enemy. Maybe let exarchs choose their powers during deployment as they call out plays to their squads. Our redeploy and Forewarned strats do a decent job of leaning into their magnificent bastard gimmick. Maybe toss in an assassin-style strat to swap out an aspect squad, and you have force that can be changed to play significantly differently for each battle.
Vilehydra wrote:As others have kinda discussed already, there just isn't that much design space for the Eldar to take advantage of. Many armies are already blitzingly fast, carry powerful psychic phases, and run specialized squads that it feels difficult to give them an identity.
A bit of design space that has not yet been exploited is minor list tailoring, which makes the most sense with the prescient and farsighted Eldar. An implementation would be doable, but difficult.
Not sure about the specifics, but again, I can maybe get behind list-tailored eldar.
4) Alongside these changes would be making each aspect focus on a specific profile or task.
For example, instead of making banshees be melee blenders make them melee disruptors.
- Change Banshee masks to the following - 'At the start of the fight phase a unit equipped with a banshee mask may target a single unit within engagement range. Roll 2d6, and if the amount equals or exceeds their leadership that unit may not benefit from any abilities that grant them obsec. In addition when determining who controls an objective that unit counts as half as many models as it normally would (rounding up) and any actions they are performing automatically fail. This effect lasts until the end of the next fight phase. A unit may not be targeted by more than one Banshee mask per phase.
I don't know how well this would play out in practice, but it makes banshees terrifying in certain matchups without being outright killy. (although they should still hit reasonable hard as well)
Iracundus wrote:I disagree with some of these ideas of making Craftworld units not able to do a decent job unless supported by other units/stratagems/psychic powers. That is the same mistake GW has made before. That is not synergy. That is under powering units and kneecapping the faction if units need babysitting or an inordinate amount of attention from the player just to do the job they are supposedly specialized in. Seriously, I don’t seem to see other people suggest melee specialized elite units from other factions be not killy in melee, yet this pops up for Banshees or even Scorpions. Is it too much to expect an Eldar unit do its role?
Nutshell: if you have to do more just to get the same result as others, that means you were playing with a handicap/disadvantage/weak unit.
Partially agree with both of you. Iracundus is right about eldar "synergy" in the past not really working out. It generally just boiled down to the army revolving around Doom, being scrwed if they ran into skew lists, and spamming the one or two units that were well-rounded and durable enough to deal with a wide variety of targets. That's partly why you saw seer councils in 5th-7th, scatbikes and spiders and wraith knights in 7th, and flyer spam and reaper castles in 8th. All of those units (at the time) were good at staying alive and hurting a wide variety of targets. So rather than relying on both dragons and banshees to kill a rhino and the marines inside, you could just have the aforementioned units blast both off the table while being hard to remove.
That said, I think Iracundus might be overlooking some of the merits of Vilehydra et. alls' angle. If craftworlders' "thing" is just packing more of a punch than comparable units, then they become kind of a bland stat-check army. This is basically what they did with drukhari, and while I'm glad my drukhari are strong right now, they also probably feel less fluffy than they ever have before. "Fluff levels" aside, drukhari are already trying to win by being glass cannons that trade well. If craftworlders try to play the same game, then you risk having one just be an inferior version of the other. Plus, you perpetuate the arms race and make everyone else's offense and defense look worse in comparison (thus making those factions "feel off.")
Leaning into crowd control, debuff, and cost-effective support abilities lets you add value to craftworlders without perpetuating the arms race or turning the army into a stat checker. So maybe my banshees don't hit as hard as assault intercessors or incubi, but they're better at temporarily shutting down enemy offense and tarpitting units. This means that they can still win a melee fight against many targets in the long run (so they still feel like competent melee combatants), but their methods for doing so don't devolve into a sword-measuring contest, and the rest of your army will have to keep killing and debuffing key enemy units so that the banshees don't just get wiped out the turn after they charge.
I kind of dig the idea of the eldar as a bruise deck army. Debuff this enemy, lock down that enemy, and then focus fire on scariest thing not being shut down yet. Make their lockdown abilities temporary, reliant on advancing and charging, etc. so that you have to coordinate a series of waves of debuffs to keep your opponent from getting loose and beating you in straight-forward fight.
Well said. Overall I agree with Icarundus point, if you have a unit that is generally worse than another unit unless it is buffed with a Psychic power then that is a design handicap. That unit doesn't necessarily need to be as killy as another unit in that role, but if that is the case then it needs some sort of utility or survivability to make up for that. If it has neither, and is still worse than someone else at its role then it's just a handicap and that's currently where Banshees, Scorpions, Fire Dragons reside.
Personal preference I would have Banshees be more survivable, Scorpions have more utility. Fire Dragons are fine as they are, they just need to be on the same level as other Melta units.
Iracundus wrote: I disagree with some of these ideas of making Craftworld units not able to do a decent job unless supported by other units/stratagems/psychic powers. That is the same mistake GW has made before. That is not synergy. That is under powering units and kneecapping the faction if units need babysitting or an inordinate amount of attention from the player just to do the job they are supposedly specialized in. Seriously, I don’t seem to see other people suggest melee specialized elite units from other factions be not killy in melee, yet this pops up for Banshees or even Scorpions. Is it too much to expect an Eldar unit do its role?
Nutshell: if you have to do more just to get the same result as others, that means you were playing with a handicap/disadvantage/weak unit.
I agree that Eldar have been far too reliant on such things, particularly the Farseer unit above and beyond anything else. Eldar should need a diverse array of units working together to achieve victory, but being focused on lynchpin support HQ's and Gotcha abilities has had stupid game results in basically every edition.
The idea should be more "Where Space Marines bring 3 generalist tac squads to secure a flank, Eldar should have some Dire Avengers, a unit of Banshees, and a squad of Fire Dragons for the same task", and not "Banshees require a Farseer to work" as has often been the case.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Fire Dragons are fine as they are, they just need to be on the same level as other Melta units.
Upgrading the Firepike is a must. Rare artifact that only Exarchs can wield...yet entire Primaris squads carry weapons just as good and a more compact too.
Currently the Firepike does not work with the rest of the squad either. If the extra range on the Firepike is making a difference, it means the rest of the squad is not in range to shoot.
Anyway, the larger point remains too that if the Eldar player has to coordinate and bring together different units or otherwise pull off some combination, it should be rewarded for that additional risk of failure if things don’t come together. That should be how synergy should work. Do more and run the risk and get rewarded. Not do more, run the risk, and get just an equivalent result to some other faction that can just “no brainer” brute force it (or at least be at no greater vulnerability from things not coming together)
It doesn't help that GW usually over- or under-estimates the value of the buffs, but never manners to zero in with an accurate estimate of what works.
GW tends to value a buff as if it were always active, without taking into account how likely it is to actually be active. They also seem to get incredibly conservative when it comes to xenos factions compared to SM factions (at least that's my impression), giving out minor buffs that require convoluted conditions to be met but then giving SM broad buffs or ones with easy to meet conditions so that they are more likely to be "on".
Wyldhunt wrote: So maybe my banshees don't hit as hard as assault intercessors or incubi, but they're better at temporarily shutting down enemy offense and tarpitting units.
How is temporarily shutting down or tarpitting an enemy unit comparable to permanently shutting them down by eliminating them in the first place? This is what I mean. If this at best means a convoluted path towards achieving the same result as a more straightforward faction accomplishes by just outright deleting the enemy, then that is more work for the same result meaning underpowered.
In 2nd edition 40K, and Epic, the main thing for Banshees for example was about getting the charge off. If they did, the effects were devastating, whereas if they didn't, they were decent melee fighters still but their mask did nothing. The idea was a big reward if they were able to pull off the charge. That was the right paradigm: effort + risk of failure vs. big reward if successful, but not dependent on others to do a decent job.
Wyldhunt wrote: So maybe my banshees don't hit as hard as assault intercessors or incubi, but they're better at temporarily shutting down enemy offense and tarpitting units.
How is temporarily shutting down or tarpitting an enemy unit comparable to permanently shutting them down by eliminating them in the first place?
The comparison is that temporarily shutting down a unit (while still being moderately killy) is:
A.) Less obviously powerful. Which is a feature, not a bug. We can give our banshees more tricks and tools for a relatively low points cost if we're not also making them as killy as incubi.
B.) Depending on how good their shutdown abilities are, you can potentially use a relatively small, cheap squad to temporarily neutralize a much more powerful unit, buying the heavy hitters of your army time to deal with their first priority target before getting around to whatever your banshees have locked down. Ex: I have enough dark reapers to kill either the enemy eliminators or the enemy centurions, but not both. My banshees make the centurions hit on 6+ for a turn (or whatever) so that the reapers can shoot the eliminators. On my opponent's turn, my banshees stay alive because of their "only hit me on 6+ because I charged last turn" power. On my turn, my reapers kill the centurions. Banshees are cheaper than reapers, so simply taking twice the reapers isn't an option.
So basically, the theory is that we're trading raw power for a more flexible bag of tricks. One of the upsides of this being that we gain a distinctive playstyle rather than just overpowering our opponents with codex creep.
This is what I mean. If this at best means a convoluted path towards achieving the same result as a more straightforward faction accomplishes by just outright deleting the enemy, then that is more work for the same result meaning underpowered.
In 2nd edition 40K, and Epic, the main thing for Banshees for example was about getting the charge off. If they did, the effects were devastating, whereas if they didn't, they were decent melee fighters still but their mask did nothing. The idea was a big reward if they were able to pull off the charge. That was the right paradigm: effort + risk of failure vs. big reward if successful, but not dependent on others to do a decent job.
Sure. I agree with you in the abstract. Per my points above, "crowd control" eldar executed will would have that risk/reward element. We take a risk by having slightly less lethal/durable units that need to manage their lockdown resources. We are rewarded by being able to keep our opponent's overall lethality lower on a given turn than a direct offense list could.
Example: My drukhari lean heavily into offense. They alpha strike the enemy top of turn 1, kill 20% of his army, and leave him with 80% with which to retaliate. In contrast, my crowd control eldar might only kill 15% of his army but also render an additional 15% useless for a turn effectively leaving him with only 70% with which to retaliate despite inflicting lighter casualties.
If every army tries to win the game by having better raw stats than the others, then you end up with one faction just being the clear best faction. And that's boring, right?
Cheap cannon fodder tarpit is not how I or perhaps most people envision Eldar Aspect Warriors.
While it all sounds nice in theory, I don't think that is how it will work out in practice, and will be basically melee units that cannot kill anything and need to be bailed out by others, leading to their replacement in armies by things that can kill and delete things. The uncertain benefit of tying down or debuffing the enemy is not as valuable IMO than what you are suggesting.
I see this as perhaps similar to what happened with Guardian catapults between 2nd and 3rd edition (and which was first done in the transition from 2nd edition Epic to Epic 40K). The idea of halving the range and of taking fire without being able to return fire, was supposedly to be compensated for by a more rapid rate of fire at the shorter range. Except as it turned out, the value of that additional shot was nowhere near as valuable as what GW seemed to think it was, and which led to the end of the Guardian being used for anything more than ablative shielding.
Eldar are commonly and repeatedly described as glass cannons, but melee units that cannot melee and which can only tarpit until killed off or bailed out by others is not in keeping with that idea of hitting hard. It would lead or perpetuate the current situation of Banshees being rarely seen because they cannot cost effectively kill stuff reliably. Having to be boosted or bailed out by others means they are not cost effective in either points or time/effort.
I don't agree with the idea of making Eldar units weak but maybe mediocre or slightly good if <insert conditions>. The uncertain value of it means historically the masses of players will not use. Players as a whole I think will gravitate something with more consistent performance. Eldar units should be decent/good on their own but even excellent if <insert conditions>.
The idea of them being glass cannons just doesn't really make much sense though. Even basic Mesh Armour is described as being superior to Imperial Carapace Armour and most Aspect Warrior suits are just as resistant to damage as Marine Power Armour. Added to this you'll have various shield protections like holo-fields. As for the vehicles well they're all pretty much made of Wraithbone which is itself an absurdly durable material and easily more damage resistant than a multitude of Imperial and other Xenos ones.
Obviously none of this needs to make them tanky chonks and it's not like Tempestus Scions (with their 4+ saves) are particularly resilient right now. But the idea of Craftworld units not being able to take any sort of return punch doesn't really make a lot of sense. Drukhari? Sure; they have units which explicitly under-dress in terms of protection and have less regard for the lives of their species as a whole (and the numbers to waste lives if they need to).
If there's an obvious design space comparison it would be to High Elves in WHFB; actually very, very well armoured, but they would be routinely forced to make a lot of armour saves because of their low toughness across the board.
The “fragile” thing came in at the same time (Epic 40k and 3rd edition) possibly due to the perception that a trade off or vulnerability was needed. In 2nd edition Epic, Phantom Titans were faster, more maneuverable, and just as well armored and durable as Imperial Warlord Titans. In Epic 40K Phantoms got made fragile, taking critical hits more easily. The same sort of thing happened in BFG, with low Armor values and easier critical hits against them.
Mesh was better than flak, worse than carapace. It was 5+, when flak was 6+/5+ vs blasts and templates. The perception of fragility is possibly due to MEQ becoming the standard whereas originally GEQ was meant to be the standard. A Guardian with 2nd edition mesh and 2nd edition catapult was objectively superior to a Guardsman.
Iracundus wrote: The “fragile” thing came in at the same time (Epic 40k and 3rd edition) possibly due to the perception that a trade off or vulnerability was needed.
Eldar toughness didn't particularly change between 2nd and 3rd edition. The all or nothing rules of 3e and the focus on core units rather than hero units just put a bit more focus on it.
Of course 3e was also the era of starcannon spam so Eldar fragility was relative.
